I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Exley97:
I'm not sure what the solution is for this one, but I'm not confident the bans will ultimately have the long term desired effect that most people are hoping for.

Bans may do little to damage his already established audience, but they may reduce the number of people who come across his material incidentally. Some who do so may get "sucked in", and so it might reduce him adding new members. It very likely will damage his media income, and thus make it harder for him to produce material.

There may be another impact, which is a "chilling effect" on other extreme right commentators. They want an audience, and in some cases may be heavily attracted by the income available, from successful social media presence. The knowledge that they risk bans may encourage them to a degree of moderation.

Well that's a positive action they've managed for once, even if for reasons more related to currency than anything moral. I look forward to the Jones-Bannon duet British tour of our conservative politicians behind closed doors before they attempt to take on the EU together in unholy matrimony.

Agema:

Exley97:
I'm not sure what the solution is for this one, but I'm not confident the bans will ultimately have the long term desired effect that most people are hoping for.

Bans may do little to damage his already established audience, but they may reduce the number of people who come across his material incidentally. Some who do so may get "sucked in", and so it might reduce him adding new members. It very likely will damage his media income, and thus make it harder for him to produce material.

Maybe, but personally I'm not sure Jones' followers were "sucked in" at all. In other words, I wonder if these people were damaged from the start and simply found that Jones reinforced their own distorted reality. As an example, a lot has been made of the fact that Edgar Maddison Welch, the guy who shot up Comet Pizza, was an Infowars follower, but I have a hard time believing there were precipitating events outside of Alex Jones that led to this, i.e. spending hours on end on whatever Chan hell hole is propagating the latest Qanon and Pizzagate bullshit. Did Jones contribute to pushing him into action? Yeah, maybe. But like I've been saying -- this guy was most likely broken long before he tuned into Jones. Removing Jones from these platforms isn't going to magically rid the internet or the world of these people because, as demonstrated below, this probably starts well before someone first tunes into Infowars:

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/845668492489736194

Agema:
There may be another impact, which is a "chilling effect" on other extreme right commentators. They want an audience, and in some cases may be heavily attracted by the income available, from successful social media presence. The knowledge that they risk bans may encourage them to a degree of moderation.

Two thoughts
1) I'd like to believe that this would encourage a degree of moderation in ALL extreme commentary (not just right wing), but that's not how these people generally work, and banning content and its creators can have the opposite effect.
2) I think it's worth discussing what unintended consequences that "chilling effect" may have on other less extreme commentary/content, and whether or not we want a small handful of tech giants to decide where to draw the line. (Note: this is not a defense of Jones or an argument against what Apple/Google did)

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

trunkage:
You forgot about the fake medical remedies that make him heaps of money. I was going to make a joke about being controlled by Big Pharma but I don't know who it would actually be

Big (snake) Oil.

That sounds like a Metal Gear codename.

A bit, though I'd put it in the territory of Metal Gear Rule 34. I mean, come on. Big? Snake?? Oil!??

Agema:
There may be another impact, which is a "chilling effect" on other extreme right commentators. They want an audience, and in some cases may be heavily attracted by the income available, from successful social media presence. The knowledge that they risk bans may encourage them to a degree of moderation.

The usual folks who believe only people who agree with them should be allowed to express their opinions on the internet have smelled blood in the water and are already trying to get the same sites to ban Stephen Molyneux, Lauren Southern, Crowder, Gavin McInnes, Candace Owens, Mark Dice, Joe Rogan, nd Prison Planet. On the whole not quite as insane as Alex Jones, but still pretty fringe. If they get any of those, the next round will be even less so until they get refused.

There's also a fun thread where the Twitter CEO posted that he didn't ban Alex Jones because Alex Jones hadn't violated Twitter TOS. Leading to accusations that @jack is a racist, sexist, alt-right neo-Nazi white supremacist, etc, etc, etc.

Silentpony:

Samtemdo8:
INB4 Zontar links a vid of Razorfist bitching against Youtube for this:

As to what I personally think? Alex fuckin Jones?! Why couldn't they shut down Stefan Molyneux first? That guy imo is more dangerous than Alex Jones.

Why would anyone, Zontar included, care what Razorfist thinks? The dude is little better than a QAnon follower with a thesaurus and a massive hate boner for his own life.

Oooh someone shit-talking Razorfist. Please tell me more, I want Razorfist to get as equal of a shit-talking as he shit talks against others.

Everyone who is decrying what happened to Alex Jones as social media's cowardly attempt of censorship and a violation of free speech...

Well, first we have to realize there's a difference between Free Speech and Commercial Speech. You, I, and every member of this board? We get free speech protections. Alex Jones is Commercial Speech. He does what he does for a profit. No governmental protections there. No Free Speech Violations either.

This feels like the Jessica Price Incident notched up to the Nth level. If someone had no problem with her getting fired but did with Jones... well, gotta get that mental gymnastics work out some how, right?

Schadrach:

Agema:
There may be another impact, which is a "chilling effect" on other extreme right commentators. They want an audience, and in some cases may be heavily attracted by the income available, from successful social media presence. The knowledge that they risk bans may encourage them to a degree of moderation.

The usual folks who believe only people who agree with them should be allowed to express their opinions on the internet have smelled blood in the water and are already trying to get the same sites to ban Stephen Molyneux, Lauren Southern, Crowder, Gavin McInnes, Candace Owens, Mark Dice, Joe Rogan, nd Prison Planet. On the whole not quite as insane as Alex Jones, but still pretty fringe. If they get any of those, the next round will be even less so until they get refused.

There's also a fun thread where the Twitter CEO posted that he didn't ban Alex Jones because Alex Jones hadn't violated Twitter TOS. Leading to accusations that @jack is a racist, sexist, alt-right neo-Nazi white supremacist, etc, etc, etc.

So?
It's just folks expressing their opinion on the internet. If anyone on that random list of names you brought up gets banned because people pointed out that they broke the rules of the site they were using, then they deserve it. People have every right to ban who they want from the website that they own.

Those people can still express their opinions on the internet, just not on that specific site

Schadrach:

already trying to get the same sites to ban Stephen Molyneux, Lauren Southern, Crowder, Gavin McInnes, Candace Owens, Mark Dice, Joe Rogan, nd Prison Planet. On the whole not quite as insane as Alex Jones

Why would anyone want to ban Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern? They're two of YouTube's best comedy acts. Just look at this:

image

The only people from that fringe who I really do think need to go are RooshV and -possibly- Millennial Woes and Black Pigeon Speaks. RooshV because he is an actual, self-avowed rape advocate who has repeatedly admitted to committing numerous acts that fit the definition of rape and makes a living by instructing emotionally vulnerable young men to do likewise, and the latter two because they cross the line from "Paranoid bigot" to "Legitimately unstable bigot whose content might end up convincing someone to blow up a middle school".

Seanchaidh:

Whitbane:
Oh wow, big tech getting together to synchronise a ban on someone they don't like. Definitely a good precedent to set!

Disgusting.

The ban itself is justified; there are a lot better cases to hang your hat on when it comes to facebook censorship. It's not like this is the first person they've ever banned. Other bans just don't get punted all over the media. Alex Jones literally could face civil penalties for some of the speech he's been putting out there. In a speech-friendly jurisdiction like the United States! A ban from facebook et al., if anything, is late.

I agree with you, Sean. I'm all in favor of free speech. I believe that the government making laws on what I can and cannot say, with the exception of "fighting words" doctrines, is not just a slippery slope, but a million gallons of soap dumped on top of Mt. Everest.

This is not that. This is Youtube/Facebook/Spotify/Apple/whathaveyou all saying that Alex Jones is not allowed to use their platform for speech. You may have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean everyone everywhere is required to give you a platform. In addition, I do feel like a lot of what Alex Jones says is not just disagreeable, but downright dangerous. By accusing Parkland shooting victims of being "crisis actors", Alex Jones is very conceivably committing slander. By promoting the conspiracy against certain vaccines such as the HPV vaccine, Alex Jones is putting lives at risk.

I'd be saying all this if Alex Jones were a liberal spouting claims about how the GOP sacrifices babies in nightly rituals, and is conspiring with the Democratic party in order to ensure that the latter puts forward candidates that the former knows they can overcome. My feelings on Alex Jones do not have to do with his politics, persay. My feelings on him are based on how outrageous his lies are, and how little concern he seems to have with collateral damage caused by his words. I feel like, while often cited to explain free speech, this comic perfectly represents what happened to Alex Jones.

I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

I support his right to rant online, but I also support the right of private platforms to establish guidelines by which people using that platform must adhere to.

Jones can bring his content to content to other platforms if needs be, like DailyMotion. If private platforms overuse their authorities, the free market will provide a valuable alternative. Trust in the system, man.

Also, these companies hold, overall, liberal core values, not "leftist" core values.

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

Its called the free market of ideas. Jones put his ideas out on the market and the market said no. YouTube and Facebook owe Jones nothing, and they have every right to kick his dumb ass off the platform just as Jones had every right to say his dumb things.

No sympathy for a man who tells a parent of a dead child that they're not just lying about their kid being dead, but doing so to fit his rhetoric. Get him out of here.

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

If I take to a public airway and repeatedly accuse you of molesting children and that you need to be brought down for it, exactly what should happen to me?

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

You support his right to say drag queens should be burned alive on a platform which has guidelines against such hate speech?
Is that a 'leftist core value' and not basic human decency?

Sonmi:

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

I support his right to rant online, but I also support the right of private platforms to establish guidelines by which people using that platform must adhere to.

Jones can bring his content to content to other platforms if needs be, like DailyMotion. If private platforms overuse their authorities, the free market will provide a valuable alternative. Trust in the system, man.

Also, these companies hold, overall, liberal core values, not "leftist" core values.

Not even liberal core values, just reality values. Jones is the type of guy even Fox Molder would say is out there. He helped promote pizzagate, the child rape basement in a pizza place with no basement(buy a new rifle to protect your family!), and the government trying to turn people gay(buy manly supplements!), and that air trails are real(buy a gasmask) and Obama is going to bankrupt the world(buy survival seeds!).
The dude pandered to mentally disturbed and frightened people so he could sell them a solution to their fear. That there really is a rape monster under the bed and the only way to stop it is with this SuperLight Max5000 , the only flashlight guaranteed to scare the rape monster that is right now trying to get to you, yours for only 10 easy payments of $39.99! Buy now, don't get raped!

So its no surprise that type of mental abuse, fear mongering and intellectual terrorism would be shut down by companies that can't afford to be associated with him.

Vendor-Lazarus:
I've never seen socialists champion capitalist values so much, except when it comes to free speech..

I don't agree with everything, or anything, that Alex Jones say. I still support his right to say it.
Just because the current soapbox is all online, and controlled by companies, with ever increasing leftist "core values", doesn't mean a political monopoly is right.The content isn't always the creator, nor rarely the company delivering the content and platform.
If people didn't like his talks, they wouldn't listen. But they do. So a "benevolent and enlightened" authority has to intervene to silence said popular speech going against their "core values".

That they all did it on the same day, and with the most proliferate social media, says volumes.
Did the same thing happens once before ..hmm?
What is it called now again, when different companies decide to all work towards a similar goal?

You wouldn't say this if you had a child who got murdered and some monster online called you a liar about it.

Smithnikov:
No sympathy for a man who tells a parent of a dead child that they're not just lying about their kid being dead, but doing so to fit his rhetoric. Get him out of here.

Don't forget that he's now trying to get the info of the shooting victims made public.

image

I love it when left wing corporatists put themselves into an unwinnable situation. Like him or not (and let's face it, outside of the odd PJW rant InfoWars is good for nothing but meme soundbites) Jones is not exceptional in any way other then the fact he's a better actors then most of his contemporaries and accordingly more popular. He's basically TYT only more entertaining and no one got shot because of his radicalising people (the baseball shooter). Now his app is (or at least for a time was) the most trending one on the app store, he's become a martyr, and now Ted Cruz has a justification to do what he promised back during January's hearings and bring down the hammer of the government down on these sites, since they are not open harbours anymore, meaning they are now legally culpable for every single thing anyone posts on their sites.

There's no turning back now. The beginning of the 2nd tech bubble burst we've seen over the past two weeks must have them spooked, but this is only going to make it all worst, and that's great. You just had to treat right wing crazies the same way as left wing ones, you just had to apply the rules evenly, but even that was too hard. Congratulations Silicon Valley, you played yourself.

image

"You just had to treat right wing crazies the way you treat left wing ones"?

Bring the hammer down when they get too public? Like trying to dox the parents of school shooting victims after saying for years that they were faking the whole thing?

Alex Jones is a goodly way down the slippery slope you seem to think we're at the top of. Though I do get perverse pleasure out of watching conservative libertarian "classically liberal" types demand that the government step in to regulate speech on a private platform.

Zontar:
no one got shot because of his radicalising people (the baseball shooter).

There are some people in a pizza place who would disagree with you there.

So would the families of police officers killed by Richard Polawski, who took Jones's NWO shit pretty damn serious.

So would Oscar Ortega, who tried to take potshots at Obama because Jones proclaimed him the Antichrist.

So would the family of Gabby Giffords when Jared Loughner, an avid Jones fan, tried to assassinate her nad took out six people while attempting.

So would the families of the cops who apprehended Byron Williams, who got inspired by Jones to go all Rambo on an ACLU office

So would the families of the police and civilian intervening who were gunned down by Jared and Amanda Miller, who pinned a note of "This is the beginning of the revolution" and were...yea, you know where I'm going by now.

Schadrach:

Agema:
There may be another impact, which is a "chilling effect" on other extreme right commentators. They want an audience, and in some cases may be heavily attracted by the income available, from successful social media presence. The knowledge that they risk bans may encourage them to a degree of moderation.

The usual folks who believe only people who agree with them should be allowed to express their opinions on the internet have smelled blood in the water and are already trying to get the same sites to ban Stephen Molyneux, Lauren Southern, Crowder, Gavin McInnes, Candace Owens, Mark Dice, Joe Rogan, nd Prison Planet. On the whole not quite as insane as Alex Jones, but still pretty fringe. If they get any of those, the next round will be even less so until they get refused.

There's also a fun thread where the Twitter CEO posted that he didn't ban Alex Jones because Alex Jones hadn't violated Twitter TOS. Leading to accusations that @jack is a racist, sexist, alt-right neo-Nazi white supremacist, etc, etc, etc.

If straight up libel about the parents of school shooting victims leading to these parents having to go underground to get away from the harassment isn't against twitter's TOS, what's even the point of having a TOS?

I agree we don't treat the right-wing crazies equal to the left wing crazies. If we did, then Trump wouldn't be President and people would stop blaming Antifa and defending Nazis.

Smithnikov:

Zontar:
no one got shot because of his radicalising people (the baseball shooter).

There are some people in a pizza place who would disagree with you there...

No, see, he only held up the store at gunpoint while searching for the non-existent basement.

altnameJag:
"You just had to treat right wing crazies the way you treat left wing ones"?

Yes, because this "it's only a problem with the right does it" attitude that social media is openly taking, it's kind of illegal for companies to hold if they want the protections they use to not get their door busted down every time some pedophile posts child pornography on their site.

Smithnikov:

There are some people in a pizza place who would disagree with you there.

No they'd not pretend someone died in that incident.

So would the families of police officers killed by Richard Polawski, who took Jones's NWO shit pretty damn serious.

Yet neither he nor the government claim that was why he did it. We going to blame CNN for the Texas BLM shooting?

So would Oscar Ortega, who tried to take potshots at Obama because Jones proclaimed him the Antichrist.

And like the two people who where radicalised by CNN to shot Trump, he didn't kill anyone.

So would the family of Gabby Giffords when Jared Loughner, an avid Jones fan, tried to assassinate her nad took out six people while attempting.

You are literally the first person I've ever seen try to connect InfoWars to Loughner.

So would the families of the cops who apprehended Byron Williams, who got inspired by Jones to go all Rambo on an ACLU office

This one actually does hold validity, though given how much exception you take to it I assume this means you also support the SPLC getting the same treatment given they where responsible for the Family Research Council shooting in 2012.

So would the families of the police and civilian intervening who were gunned down by Jared and Amanda Miller, who pinned a note of "This is the beginning of the revolution" and were...yea, you know where I'm going by now.

Again, first time I've ever seen this connected to InfoWars by anyone. Plus, what does the phrase "This is the beginning of the revolution" even mean in terms of identifying them as anything? It's what every right leaning and left leaning group has been calling for for years now. So no, unless you're going to do what no news outlet I can find has done and somehow connect their shooting to Jones, I don't see where you're going by now. All I see is a list of reasons to treat InfoWars the same way TYT, CNN and the SPLC are, unless you really do want to take the stance that "it's different when the right does it", since while blatant hypocrisy it's also the only internally sound argument for why InfoWars should be treated differently.

I'm not going to respond to comments pretending they are being treated equally, it'd be a waste to respond to trolling.

Saelune:
I agree we don't treat the right-wing crazies equal to the left wing crazies. If we did, then Trump wouldn't be President and people would stop blaming Antifa and defending Nazis.

Until TYT and CNN get banned from those platforms, stating that right wing crazies aren't treated equally to left wing crazies is a factual statement, and claiming they're treated better or equally is an objectively and inarguable incorrect one. The fact people outside of the incestuous corporate media don't pretend Antifa didn't do anything wrong when it commits crimes or that the 90% of people the far left claims are Nazis are not (and that the 10% of ones that are have a right to voice their opinions) isn't "defending Nazis".

Funny thing is, this attitude is why the right keeps winning the culture war despite having the media against us, hell at this point the war practically seems like the left is in a running retreat given how desperate some are, how the attitude of "no bad tactic, only bad targets" went from the fringes to mainstream amongst you. You're going to lose Quebec this year, Canada next year, Trump is going to win 2020, and it's entirely the fault of the left wing establishment.

As should be expected, he's more popular then ever.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/7/alex-jones-take-down-makes-him-martyr-censorship-c/

You can't stop the signal, only debunk it afterwards with calm, rational discussion. But we can't have that, the odd mix of socialistic views blended with corporatism that dominates Silicon Valley wouldn't be able to survive 5 minutes being discussed with a liberal or conservative.

Zontar:
As should be expected, he's more popular then ever.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/7/alex-jones-take-down-makes-him-martyr-censorship-c/

You can't stop the signal, only debunk it afterwards with calm, rational discussion. But we can't have that, the odd mix of socialistic views blended with corporatism that dominates Silicon Valley wouldn't be able to survive 5 minutes being discussed with a liberal or conservative.

More and more I'm being to suspect that when people say rational and calm, they actually mean "you better listen to me before I shoot you. Your opinion in worth crap al and not wanted." I no longer trust this comment

Also, I have no idea why Alex Jones shouldn't be the one attempting to be calm and rational for once. Why do his opponents have to be nice all the time, when Jones attacks them so much? If the Right is so worried about civility, maybe they need to be the bigger people and show the Left how to treat people. And before you answer that the Right do, I would say some. But definitely not enough.

trunkage:
More and more I'm being to suspect that when people say rational and calm, they actually mean "you better listen to me before I shoot you. Your opinion in worth crap al and not wanted." I no longer trust this comment

Antifa is just about the only subset of any group in society I've seen act in a way that would lead to this view.

Also, I have no idea why Alex Jones shouldn't be the one attempting to be calm and rational for once. Why do his opponents have to be nice all the time, when Jones attacks them so much? If the Right is so worried about civility, maybe they need to be the bigger people and show the Left how to treat people. And before you answer that the Right do, I would say some. But definitely not enough.

I'm not calling for Alex's opponents to be calm and rational when he isn't, I'm stating that if you want to defeat him, trying one's hand at censorship isn't going to accomplish that goal, in fact it's only going to have the opposite effect. Even ignoring the fact it implies that one can neither successfully refute him nor prevent people from being swayed, it also works to legitimise him at that, because you see him as such a threat that playing by the rules doesn't work.

CNN, TYT, MSNBC and their ilk can keep to being the enemy of the people they have made the choice to be, they have every right to turn the 4th Estate into a 5th column, but social media sites have made the choice to enter a no-win scenario for themselves because of this, one that, given the fact the neocons have lost control of the GOP, is going to bite them in the ass very hard when they realise that Ted Cruz wasn't bluffing when he said that this exact type of overt political discrimination that would be criminal if it was based on religion, race or sex, is going to come to an end, or they will be treated as a utility and have absolutely no say whatsoever in what content gets removed.

It's actually kind of terrifying that people who claim to be on the left (and even go so far as to claim themselves socialists) approve of all this. Unless one is playing the long game and waiting for the state to force these companies into utility status, there is no ideological argument on the left in support of this, since it's antithetical to liberalism and socialism to take such a corporatist stance. But then again we live in a time where socialists pretend that their ideology is less conflicting with Macron then it is LaPenn, so there aren't that many socialists who believe in socialism around anyway.

Alex Jones didn't start broadcasting yesterday. He's been doing this exact thing for years. Info Wars (not even Jones' first foray into verbal radio diarrhea) was founded in 1999. People have been "calmly and rationally" debunking his garbage for almost two decades at this point.

If two decades of calm and rational debunking has a recorded history of not working, why do you think it would have worked if people only continued it?

undeadsuitor:

If two decades of calm and rational debunking has a recorded history of not working, why do you think it would have worked if people only continued it?

Well first and foremost being the fact that the number of people who are going to be convinced now who wouldn't before is 0.

Second is the fact that on top of having convinced 0 people that he's wrong, you've now just signalled to impressionable teenagers that he's legitimate enough to warrant kicking off all social media sites for no reason (no reasons meaning "reasons we wouldn't dare go after others for if their ideology aligns with our own" in this case).

Like it or not crazies like Jones have always existed, exist now and will always exist. Unless you're going to try some crazy plan that he'd be the one to pretend exists to try and fix that, it's a part of the human experience. Calm, rational debunking is the only viable route because it's the only one that doesn't signal that he's right about something enough to a degree that the powers that be are right to be worried about him. There will always be people like Jones because humans are irrational actors. Tell an irrational person that the views of another irrational person are so dangerous that they must be silent, you're telling him he has a point. Debunk what he says rationally and you might get him to reconsider. Yes, it's only a 'might', but it's better then telling him he has at least something resembling a point.

There's a reason why people like Jones and TYT have a mostly adolescent audience, most people grow out of it, and hell until Democrats had a massive upswing in how much they trusted media in 2017 compared to years before, even the more mild form of propaganda was something most people seemed to grow out of with time. It's the same reason why those in university who are socialists tend to abandon those views rather quickly after entering the work force, and why both liberals and conservatives tend to grow more centrist with age.

Bringing this back to Jones (kind of god off topic there), the number of people that have been convinced he isn't right with this action is 0, the number who have been convinced he is is greater then 1. If the goal is to stop his message from being spread, they have failed spectacularly. Honestly they didn't even go about it in anything resembling a smart way. All they had to do was go through with what YouTube did to Leafy: only show his content to his subscribers, followers, or whatever, and not disseminate it beyond that. It killed Leafy's channel, it would at least diminish his reach. Best part is no one could actually prove it, which they can do with this mass banning, since it not only happened on the same day, but one of them was fucking LinkedIn, which doesn't even have a means he could have done something to get himself banned on it to begin with.

To cut a long story short, this was the worst thing these sites could have done to themselves, because even ignoring the inevitable government response to them abandoning their protected harbour status, they just made it clear that the door is open for any person or entity being banished from the social media sphere if Silicon Valley Technofascist (can't think of a better term for California's hybrid of socialist/corporatists working in tech) don't like them. I mean who's next, Steven Crowder? Lauren Southern? Paul Joseph Watson? It isn't going to be TYT despite the fact an equal application of the rules would have had them banned within minutes of Jones.

I just don't get what they where thinking. Even I think too rationally to understand what possible motive for putting their entire industry into this no-win scenario was. Has the collapse of the tech bubble really got them that spooked that even I can't comprehend how irrational they are?

Love to die on a hill defending a guy who believes Qanon is real.

BreakfastMan:
Love to die on a hill defending a guy who believes Qanon is real.

I mean, this looney toon said NASA's got slave labor camps on mars, which would be adorable if he weren't also harassing the parents of school shooting victims relentlessly over the course of 6 years in a way that supposedly doesn't conflict with twitter's harassment policies.

Comparing Alex Jones to CNN or MSNBC is batshit. He's the Onion, only people are actually acting on it.

altnameJag:

Comparing Alex Jones to CNN or MSNBC is batshit. He's the Onion, only people are actually acting on it.

It's not batshit if we're looking at the consequences of their existence. CNN and the like are responsible for two attempts on Trump's life during the campaign. Granted they where not well thought out attempts, and that guy TYT radicalised actually killed people, but then TYT also has batshit statements (off the top of my head I recall them basically claiming the radiation from Japan coming over to the west coast was at levels that would have killed 80 million people if true).

Which is worst, words or actions? If words, what does the pen offer that makes you so afraid? If actions, why treat equal actions differently depending on the source?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here