I guess various social media platforms have banned Alex Jones?

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

Schadrach:

Silentpony:

Milo tried to pull that about his pro-pedophilia bit, and it didn't work out so well.

The thing I find interesting about Milo's pro-pedo bit is that a certain gay actor well-known for a role on Star Trek had a similar pro-pedo bit and the same people who tore Milo apart for it didn't seem to especially care.

Saelune:
I wonder if people thought when things like rape and murder were made illegal that suddenly 'Oh no, if they come for the rapists and murderers, it is a slippery slope before they come after me!'

I'm sure even then there were folks worried about whether or not they would be punished for stabbing someone who had come to rob them with their pitchfork, and if in a society where laws were actually codified where exactly the lines lie. Hell, we still argue about killing in self-defense to this day, and laws against murder are some of the oldest laws.

Saelune:
Ok, so if I said we should remove those things too, would you be ok with that? I agree, there is a lot of trash on youtube that should not be. I hate that I do not trust many youtube videos and channels and if they got removed, I'd be fine with that.

Would you feel that way if you thought even for a second that whoever was determining what was "trash" would be someone with a radically different worldview than you?

Agema:
Hate speech laws do not specify that only "minorities" can be victims. Thus hate crime against whites, men, heterosexuals etc. is as possible as hate crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, etc.

Depends on the specific case, as does application. For example there was a case in Canada in which a black woman beat a white woman while yelling about how she hates white folks and crackers deserve various kinds of harm -- this was not considered a hate crime. Because reasons. In the US, for black folks to get charged with a hate crime against white folks it has to be something as horrific and public as the 2017 Chicago torture incident (and even then, the emphasis was on a guy with schizophrenia and ADHD as being mentally-disabled -- which was apparently more relevant than their explicitly verbalizing a hatred of white folks as far as it being a hate crime). It's really interesting how media coverage actively de-emphasized race when discussing it, too.

The way people cry about other anti-discrimination laws being used against the "wrong" people (such as Unruh in CA and occasionally Title IX) doesn't give me much confidence, either.

Souplex:

CM156:
Smh, now how else are people going to learn the truth about the gay frogs and the chemicals?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address this point anyways. He used that as an attempt to hock water filters. He's profiting off selling solutions to imaginary problems.

The sad part is that it isn't a wholly imaginary problem in that case, just an exaggerated one. It's just that less excitable folks talk about endocrine disrupting compounds that mostly enter the water supply through leaching out of plastics and pharmaceutical waste (for example improper disposal of things like oral contraceptives). Which amphibians are especially sensitive to, and which cause sexual side effects. Alex Jones is wrong in his claims here, but he's truth adjacent.

Unlike some people, I do not go all or nothing.

If youtube tried to remove things I felt should stay, I would just complain about them specifically removing that. I think youtube SHOULD remove/ban right-wing nutjobs who make up patently false lies, and I think youtube SHOULD NOT ban people promoting LGBT rights.

Just as I think cops SHOULD shoot people who are armed and dangerous violent criminals, and SHOULD NOT shoot unarmed, subdued black people.

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Yet baker's are allowed to deny services to gay people?

Alex Jones is a contractor or employee of YouTube (depending on your definition.) They definitely have less rights than a consumer. There are plenty of things that I, as an employee, cant do. I can get fired for private things I say on Facebook. I can get fired for private conversations that get leaked to my boss. Unless Alex Jones is somehow exempt this or you change a private institution into a public space, he has a contract to follow

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Government takeover of private services for "moral reasons".

Sounds like a communist/fascist takeover to me.

Sonmi:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Government takeover of private services for "moral reasons".

Sounds like a communist/fascist takeover to me.

The irony.

Sonmi:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Government takeover of private services for "moral reasons".

Sounds like a communist/fascist takeover to me.

Not necessarily. Legally speaking, a public forum is just a place where people are permitted to say whatever they want without fear of being arrested. A sidewalk is a public forum, for example. Most streets and parks are public forums. University grounds are considered a limited type of public forum.

It's entirely possible to have a public forum that is not operated or controlled by the government - a commons, for example, is a type of public property that is not necessary administered or owned by the government. Wikipedia is a digital commons. It's possible someone (probably a charitable trust) could create a type of Wikipedia-esque property with the goal of providing a universal public forum for free speech rather than a universal public encyclopedia. (In a sense, we already have that, but it's ugly.)

In practice, though, the vast majority of public forums are controlled by the government. The upside is that in a lot of ways, this means less regulation than if privately owned - there's a lot of things you can do on a street corner that you can't do inside a movie theatre, for example.

Sonmi:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Government takeover of private services for "moral reasons".

Sounds like a communist/fascist takeover to me.

You know those things are mutually exclusive right? Its fine to make accusation but this seems more like throwing negative busswords around just because it sounds naughty to you.

Hades:

Sonmi:

Ravinoff:
I'm strongly of the opinion that it's long past time that Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc should be considered public forums in the legal sense, for several reasons. The more Big Tech does shit like this, the more likely that becomes.

Government takeover of private services for "moral reasons".

Sounds like a communist/fascist takeover to me.

You know those things are mutually exclusive right? Its fine to make accusation but this seems more like throwing negative busswords around just because it sounds naughty to you.

I know these things are mutually exclusive.

I'm using Jonesish rhetoric to point out how hypocritical it is for Jones' boys to call for government control of private platforms like Google or Twitter when it arranges them.

Man, there are a lot of Bill Hicks haters in this thread.

Eacaraxe:
Man, there are a lot of Bill Hicks haters in this thread.

I take that you ran out of arguments.

CaitSeith:

Eacaraxe:
Man, there are a lot of Bill Hicks haters in this thread.

I take that you ran out of arguments.

No, no I certainly did not. Just made one, in fact. I'm just deciding to have a little fun with this, first. You might ask yourself why I brought up Bill Hicks in an Alex Jones thread.

Eacaraxe:

CaitSeith:

Eacaraxe:
Man, there are a lot of Bill Hicks haters in this thread.

I take that you ran out of arguments.

No, no I certainly did not. Just made one, in fact.

Where? I only see other members getting labeled.

CaitSeith:
Where? I only see other members getting labeled.

Okay, fine, I'll ruin the joke. There's a conspiracy theory that Bill Hicks, a comedian famous for his (left wing) conspiracy theories and working them into his stand-up routines, faked his own death and is actually Alex Jones. Either:

1. The whole thing is a Kaufman-esque, long con, meta-joke,
2. Bill Hicks was captured by the CIA, brain washed, and given an alternate identity to act as controlled opposition, or,
3. Bill Hicks was actually a CIA agent all the time, but given a new assignment and identity.

There are people who unironically believe this. I thought it was a stupid-ass 4chan prank when I first read about it, but it's a real conspiracy theory. What puts this into a whole new realm of humor, is it's actually one of the most coherent conspiracy theories I've ever read...and I've read a lot.

Saelune:
The argument is that Gunn STOPPED doing that shit. If Alex Jones ever wants to stop being horrible, apologize, and work to be better, then we can talk about maybe forgiving him. Alex Jones is STILL SAYING THAT HORRIBLE SHIT HE HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

Your distinction is that Gunn stopped being offensive to you where as Jones did not? That again is nothing but your personal opinion, and I do not think your personal opinion is a good measure of determining the rights of someone to speak freely, or if the censoring of that right is justified.

As I said before, the comparison is based on censorship based on offensive words. In both cases, being offended was justification for the response. You are making a special plea that time has a factor to consider here (one that is itself tenuous at best, given the apology for other offensive tweets while still not removing the pedophilia ones suggests a lack of conviction in not offending people until they made a public response unavoidable).

altnameJag:
"Six years ago, an hour ago, what's the difference? It's all technically in the past".

Who are you to determine the rules of how other people are allowed to be offended? After all, the exact same counter-argument against those saying "it is just a joke" when saying an offensive racial slur would apply here: it is the person downplaying the offensive words with conditions that ultimately dictate onto the offended party the "rules" for them being allowed to be offended.

Now me, I think neither should be censored for offending people. I can see why Disney would fire Gunn, or why Facebook would kick Jones, but I don't think either should be deplatformed across all platforms for their words on a different platform.

But if the rules being played at currently is "you offend people, you suffer the consequences", then that has to be played fairly. Being offended by something said a decade ago is no less offensive to some than a comment made last year, so who are you to dictate to others what they can or can not be offended by? And why is the offendedness of some people more important to listen to than others?

In making special pleading and adding conditions, it really makes it look like this is solely a punishment for being political opposition, justified after the fact with whatever you can pull out of your rear to do so.

As for myself, this sort of thing is why I think such acceptance of witch hunts for offending people is a bad idea in the first place. You are offended? So what? Move on, let others decide for themselves if they want to, and let that determine their success or failure. This outrage manufacturing and manipulation is a lot of garbage to begin with. I mean hell, it isn't like the people complained about are bad at their jobs in some way justifying why the customers would be upset for not getting the product or service they came for. Both Gunn and Jones are good at what they are paid to do.

Avnger:

It's almost like context matters...

When was the last time Gunn made one of those statements? What is his recent and current attitudes towards them?

When was the last time Jones made one of those statements? What is his recent and current attitudes towards them?

Not everyone pretends the world is black and white mate.

I am applying the rules made up by others to the situation. Incidents from Roseanne to Papa Johns show that offending people gets you in trouble, so we have a long-established clear baseline there. You are the one adding new conditions to tilt the game in your favor because you dislike the current outcome.

People can be fired for offending others? Ok, Gunn happened.
That a bad thing and people shouldn't be punished because of offending others? Ok, where is your defense of Jones?

Instead, it seems new rules are pulled out of your rears to justify the tactic against those you dislike and defend it against those you favor based entirely on political lean.

And if context does indeed matter so much, what is your thoughts on the Trump "grab em by the pussy" remarks? Matches the "happened in the past" condition you just created. And it matches the "context matters" complaint given the nature of the comments and the location they were made. Hell, they even match your "recent and current attitudes" thing since he clearly isn't grabbing any now.

So, with all that, would you thus claim that Trump too should not be called out for such a comment from the past? Or is that different too, for some new justification?

Hell, lets even tie this back to Saelune there. Lets say both said they were sorry. Would your personal belief in their sincerity be justification for punishing one but excusing another there? This is the sort of problem you run into when trying to justify punishment for outrage.

ObsidianJones:

James Gunn said frankly unfunny, off color, and gross things on the internet.

James Gunn did not tell a gullible public who buys chocolate chicken collagen broth from him that there are parts of government that are going to take away your rights, kill you, and report that he has proof of all this.

This is James Gunn.

This is Alex Jones.

Make no mistake, I do understand why Disney would fire Gunn, as all they want to do is promote their message. I don't have a problem with Disney as a private company desire their employees to keep on message, even if I know the jokes were just stupid jokes. Even though they were tasteless and frankly un-fucking-funny.

But even then, Gunn's comments were just really, really gross at times. Alex Jones told people the government was going to take away their weapons and enslave them. He said that Hillary personally murdered little children and chopped them up. While labeling himself as a news outlet (Warning, link takes anyone to Info Wars).

Everyone signs a contract when they get in business with someone. Have we, as a public, forgot this? We are representatives of these bigger companies. If we do things these companies dislike, we get fired. Since when is that censorship? If I curse out a lady while working for a Wall Street trading firm, and they fire me because they don't like that image... I wasn't censored, I quite possibly simply violated the terms of contract that I signed when I entered that firm.

We KNOW that Jones violated the terms of contract for the things he signed up for. From Youtube, to Facebook, to Apple. All of these companies give guidelines on what they will tolerate and what they will not. Alex Jones agreed to these terms when he signed the contract. And in all of these cases, he was given multiple strikes and warnings and he still did it. So what is the problem? Really? That he wasn't allowed to continue to ignore the law under the guise of free speech which doesn't apply here because if he's getting paid, it's commercial speech?

An actual point of distinction that isn't entirely made up on the spot? Neat. Got to thank you for that instead of repeating the same thing as the other three replies.

You are absolutely right that Gunn and Jones' words offended in different ways, and that Jones' antics violated the ToS of the site he was part of (near as I know. Willing to just take that premise at face value for this point). And as such, being banned from said site is perfectly expected and justified.

You are also right that a company you work for and publicly represent can fire you if you make them look bad by extension as a representative of that company, in the way that Gunn did for disney.

This I already agreed to.

Couple problems with the rest though.

First, my point of comparison was on the arguments of those defending gunn, and attacking jones. In particular, the reference to being offended as both no justification for a private company to fire Gunn for his comments, even if he made them look very bad, and as a justification to deplatform Jones (not just ban him from one site). The use of being offended both not being justification for a company to respond to their employee, but still being justification for a colluded effort by the largest gatekeepers on the internet to outright censor him as fully as they can... well, it is a bit much there.

Secondly, while he violated the ToS of one site, that is not a violation of it on another, and the use of that as justification is, frankely, disgustingly disingenuous of those companies. They are acting in unison to deplatform him and thus censor him from the internet, up to and including getting his website pulled, his email closed, and his financial options cut off. While I agree he is an asshole, that is way too damn far, and a demonstration that those companies hold way too much power to be able to do that.

Third, if fearmongering about how the government is going to kill them is deserving of a full internet censorship, why has that rule not been applied to those who claimed Trump was going to institute a trans concentration camps, or was going to gas the gays, or was going to implement martial law, or the myriad of other gross, dishonest, panic-causing accusations and outright lies? Surely, if such dangerous talk by the likes of Jones is such a concern that the majority of the internet itself had to work together to deny him a platform, then it must be equally demanded that anyone else who also scream hysterics should also be hit the same. The lack of support for such fairly applied responses shows the lack of true conviction in this as a defense. Otherwise why wouldn't it also hit other conspiracy theories that could do harm through panic and misinformation, such as anti-vaxers, or people claiming Trump is a nazi they have to assassinate or attack the followers of in the street, or anyone pushing communism as a viable government structure.

Considering the likes of Antifa still exist online in various places and forms despite being an outright terrorist organization, the concern and special punishment against Jones of all people shows a lack of either consistency in justification, or a lack of perspective about what are more dangerous.

Forth, being deplatformed is different than being fired from a company. Not being allowed to paint on the walls of a privately owned business is not a problem. That business owning all the buildings in town, or pressuring those that they don't into denying you any place at all to paint, that is a problem. Oligopoly of public space, to the degree the large names like google and facebook have, that is my greater concern here. Jones is an idiot, and beside this giving him his wet dream of being targeted by evil government and corporations for which he can milk for years, the fact these companies tried to do that in the first place, that should be immediately responded to negatively. Even beyond the flimsy justifications and transparently obvious motivations they had in doing it, what this says is that if they decided that only a certain political view was what they wanted, there would be no alternative for people at this point. When the majority of the major sites online have to deal with the pressure of the big ones, and even web hosting companies have to obey their wants, then there isn't an sort of actual freedom of speech to be had online. And considering how utmost of important the internet is to daily life nowadays, especially with regard to politics, that simple can not be defended, let alone accepted.

Fifth, being banned from multiple sites all at the same time, including those where he didn't breach ToS, such as the email and financial ones, makes the claim that this was all coincidental response to naturally gathered strikes doubtful, to say the least. Even more so when there already has been a history of problems relating to biases in moderation and abuses in reporting on those sites skewed along a political bias. It makes the defense there come off as convincing as a third-world dictator pointing at the previous arrest record of a man they are going to execute as justification, with everyone aware the charges and arrests were rigged from the get go.

runic knight:

altnameJag:
"Six years ago, an hour ago, what's the difference? It's all technically in the past".

Who are you to determine the rules of how other people are allowed to be offended? After all, the exact same counter-argument against those saying "it is just a joke" when saying an offensive racial slur would apply here: it is the person downplaying the offensive words with conditions that ultimately dictate onto the offended party the "rules" for them being allowed to be offended.

Now me, I think neither should be censored for offending people. I can see why Disney would fire Gunn, or why Facebook would kick Jones, but I don't think either should be deplatformed across all platforms for their words on a different platform.

If you can see why Facebook would boot Jones, why could'nt Apple or Youtube?

runic knight:

But if the rules being played at currently is "you offend people, you suffer the consequences", then that has to be played fairly. Being offended by something said a decade ago is no less offensive to some than a comment made last year, so who are you to dictate to others what they can or can not be offended by? And why is the offendedness of some people more important to listen to than others?

In making special pleading and adding conditions, it really makes it look like this is solely a punishment for being political opposition, justified after the fact with whatever you can pull out of your rear to do so.

No, it makes it look like you shouldn't be held to your worst moments your entire life. Like I've said before: if Gunn had been making those tweets last week or last month, I'd be more than okay with giving him the boot. I imagine I'm not alone.

runic knight:

As for myself, this sort of thing is why I think such acceptance of witch hunts for offending people is a bad idea in the first place. You are offended? So what? Move on, let others decide for themselves if they want to, and let that determine their success or failure. This outrage manufacturing and manipulation is a lot of garbage to begin with. I mean hell, it isn't like the people complained about are bad at their jobs in some way justifying why the customers would be upset for not getting the product or service they came for. Both Gunn and Jones are good at what they are paid to do.

So fuck what?Gunn was paid to make popular entertainment for the masses, Jones was paid to *checks notes* libel the parents of dead children by claiming they were all in on their shooting deaths, and that those dead children weren't dead and may not actually exist.

You know how if you commit a crime you go to prison and in theory people accept that you have served your time and you are reintegrated into society. Well you see, that's different to mugging someone and while you still have a gun to their head wondering why they're still so mad about it.

Yes the fact that James Gunn did a thing years ago and has since apologised for it is in fact different to Jones who's still pulling his bullshit without remorse.

runic knight:

Saelune:
The argument is that Gunn STOPPED doing that shit. If Alex Jones ever wants to stop being horrible, apologize, and work to be better, then we can talk about maybe forgiving him. Alex Jones is STILL SAYING THAT HORRIBLE SHIT HE HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

Your distinction is that Gunn stopped being offensive to you where as Jones did not? That again is nothing but your personal opinion, and I do not think your personal opinion is a good measure of determining the rights of someone to speak freely, or if the censoring of that right is justified.

As I said before, the comparison is based on censorship based on offensive words. In both cases, being offended was justification for the response. You are making a special plea that time has a factor to consider here (one that is itself tenuous at best, given the apology for other offensive tweets while still not removing the pedophilia ones suggests a lack of conviction in not offending people until they made a public response unavoidable).

One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job. And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

CheetoDust:
You know how if you commit a crime you go to prison and in theory people accept that you have served your time and you are reintegrated into society. Well you see, that's different to mugging someone and while you still have a gun to their head wondering why they're still so mad about it.

Yes the fact that James Gunn did a thing years ago and has since apologised for it is in fact different to Jones who's still pulling his bullshit without remorse.

Clearly no one should every punish anyone ever again cause what if we punish someone who doesn't deserve it? Aside from all the innocent people being punished by the bad people we aren't punishing anyways.

Clearly it is worse to punish probable rapists than it is to protect women from being raped.

Clearly it is worse to punish bullies than it is to protect their victims.

Clearly it is worse to punish people who murder children than it is to protect children from being murdered.

Clearly guns matter more than children, rapists matter more than women, Nazis matter more than Jews, and liars matter more than those who speak honestly.

Thats what it all comes down to it seems.

And ya know, what about all those people who go 'Well, if it is legal, then what can you do?'

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
The argument is that Gunn STOPPED doing that shit. If Alex Jones ever wants to stop being horrible, apologize, and work to be better, then we can talk about maybe forgiving him. Alex Jones is STILL SAYING THAT HORRIBLE SHIT HE HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

Your distinction is that Gunn stopped being offensive to you where as Jones did not? That again is nothing but your personal opinion, and I do not think your personal opinion is a good measure of determining the rights of someone to speak freely, or if the censoring of that right is justified.

As I said before, the comparison is based on censorship based on offensive words. In both cases, being offended was justification for the response. You are making a special plea that time has a factor to consider here (one that is itself tenuous at best, given the apology for other offensive tweets while still not removing the pedophilia ones suggests a lack of conviction in not offending people until they made a public response unavoidable).

One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job. And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

No, he's getting sued by the mass shooting victims not the other way around.

runic knight:
First, my point of comparison was on the arguments of those defending gunn, and attacking jones. In particular, the reference to being offended as both no justification for a private company to fire Gunn for his comments, even if he made them look very bad, and as a justification to deplatform Jones (not just ban him from one site). The use of being offended both not being justification for a company to respond to their employee, but still being justification for a colluded effort by the largest gatekeepers on the internet to outright censor him as fully as they can... well, it is a bit much there.

How does a company look when they allow an individual to walk all over them? How many times must a single individual break the rules of the company before they should act?

That's literally the question that these platforms had to answer. And in reality? They were cowards until Apple made their moves. They suddenly became fortunate in their minds. They couldn't NOT ban Jones, because they would look like they weren't as strong as Apple.

And in fact, that's all it was. A luck of the draw. As I pointed out before, Jones had a myriad of offenses already. But Youtube and Facebook were simply afraid of making the first move.

The fact is, Gunn doesn't have a fan base that will storm the infidels that dare keep his message from reaching the public. But Jones faithful have been attacking people with harassing and actual weapons for a long period of time.

And it really does make sense that Youtube didn't want to be first on line with this given the recent shooting, and rule changes that upset the majority of content creaters. Not to mention how Facebook, who already lost the public trust via their role in Russian Meddling, has been answering for the public's info getting out.

Jones abused his power and his masses to get away with whatever he could. It irked the companies for a long time, but didn't see a way out of it. Apple's loyal are a lot more than Jones' loyal. They didn't have a second thought.

Secondly, while he violated the ToS of one site, that is not a violation of it on another, and the use of that as justification is, frankely, disgustingly disingenuous of those companies. They are acting in unison to deplatform him and thus censor him from the internet, up to and including getting his website pulled, his email closed, and his financial options cut off. While I agree he is an asshole, that is way too damn far, and a demonstration that those companies hold way too much power to be able to do that.

His website being pulled... I'm thinking it's more of a stunt to get more people to download his app.

image

And, no. I don't think these companies have too much power. I think they have the power intrinsic of their control. Youtube decides who and who can not youtube. Facebook decides who and who can not facebook. That is the scope and limit of their power, as it should be.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple aren't inalienable rights. They are companies. If they got together and did this for someone who didn't violate their code of ethics that we all sign, who didn't have a mass group that's shown itself to be dangerous with no efforts of the individual to police them, and had no malicious message, yeah, I'm with you. Mainly because of the non violations itself.

But Alex Jones regularly did things on all platforms that would get you, me, and anyone else on this forum get kicked off.

Third, if fearmongering about how the government is going to kill them is deserving of a full internet censorship, why has that rule not been applied to those who claimed Trump was going to institute a trans concentration camps, or was going to gas the gays, or was going to implement martial law, or the myriad of other gross, dishonest, panic-causing accusations and outright lies? Surely, if such dangerous talk by the likes of Jones is such a concern that the majority of the internet itself had to work together to deny him a platform, then it must be equally demanded that anyone else who also scream hysterics should also be hit the same. The lack of support for such fairly applied responses shows the lack of true conviction in this as a defense. Otherwise why wouldn't it also hit other conspiracy theories that could do harm through panic and misinformation, such as anti-vaxers, or people claiming Trump is a nazi they have to assassinate or attack the followers of in the street, or anyone pushing communism as a viable government structure.

Considering the likes of Antifa still exist online in various places and forms despite being an outright terrorist organization, the concern and special punishment against Jones of all people shows a lack of either consistency in justification, or a lack of perspective about what are more dangerous.

If they did it in a manner where they incited the public to violence via their message and/or committed numerous violations of the code of ethics for their platforms, they should get taken down.

Look, my stance is the policies and contracts people sign when they get onto these things. If you violate, don't be surprised if there's actions. I wouldn't bat an eye if anyone who shared my complete political beliefs got pulled from everything social known to humankind if they completely violated on multiple times the contracts they sign to use those programs.

There have been plenty of times on this very forum where I said I support racists' right to free speech. Even if it hurts me. It's not the message, it's how you convey it. If the message starts to sound like "You need to get all of them before they get you"... and some of the followers commit actions? Then they incited something. And that's criminal.

Forth, being deplatformed is different than being fired from a company. Not being allowed to paint on the walls of a privately owned business is not a problem. That business owning all the buildings in town, or pressuring those that they don't into denying you any place at all to paint, that is a problem. Oligopoly of public space, to the degree the large names like google and facebook have, that is my greater concern here. Jones is an idiot, and beside this giving him his wet dream of being targeted by evil government and corporations for which he can milk for years, the fact these companies tried to do that in the first place, that should be immediately responded to negatively. Even beyond the flimsy justifications and transparently obvious motivations they had in doing it, what this says is that if they decided that only a certain political view was what they wanted, there would be no alternative for people at this point. When the majority of the major sites online have to deal with the pressure of the big ones, and even web hosting companies have to obey their wants, then there isn't an sort of actual freedom of speech to be had online. And considering how utmost of important the internet is to daily life nowadays, especially with regard to politics, that simple can not be defended, let alone accepted.

You're right. Being Deplatformed is very different than being fired from a company. Because as a company providing a service, they need even less justification than a company that must follow legal guidelines to ensure fair treatment in workers. There is a Department of Labor. There is no Department of Social Media.

At best? You might have the Better Business Bureau or yelp.

That aside, the problem with the case you're presenting is subjective. You can't define the justification as flimsy just because you don't give them weight. Jones commits slander (and sometimes Libel if he writes it up) on the regular. He said Mueller rapes children. The community guideline that he violated included violence and child endangerment.

That's not flimsy. That's something I want more companies to champion.

Fifth, being banned from multiple sites all at the same time, including those where he didn't breach ToS, such as the email and financial ones, makes the claim that this was all coincidental response to naturally gathered strikes doubtful, to say the least. Even more so when there already has been a history of problems relating to biases in moderation and abuses in reporting on those sites skewed along a political bias. It makes the defense there come off as convincing as a third-world dictator pointing at the previous arrest record of a man they are going to execute as justification, with everyone aware the charges and arrests were rigged from the get go.

The ones who did the non tos violations are wrong. Those who banned because they violated the rules are right. I agree with you on that.

runic knight:
Considering the likes of Antifa still exist online in various places and forms despite being an outright terrorist organization, the concern and special punishment against Jones of all people shows a lack of either consistency in justification, or a lack of perspective about what are more dangerous.

Are you living under a rock?

The likes of BDS and Antifa members are routinely deplatformed online, and in real world, more specifically on University campuses.

Hell, business owners in the American South have to sign a waiver proclaiming they'll never support BDS if they want to keep their businesses open. This "targeting" of Alex Jones is small-fry if you want to talk about political censorship.

He's an asshole that regularly broke terms of agreement and endangered innocent lives who had a massive audience, the platforms decided he had gone too far and pulled the plug on him. What is so hard to understand?

ex951753:

Saelune:

runic knight:

Your distinction is that Gunn stopped being offensive to you where as Jones did not? That again is nothing but your personal opinion, and I do not think your personal opinion is a good measure of determining the rights of someone to speak freely, or if the censoring of that right is justified.

As I said before, the comparison is based on censorship based on offensive words. In both cases, being offended was justification for the response. You are making a special plea that time has a factor to consider here (one that is itself tenuous at best, given the apology for other offensive tweets while still not removing the pedophilia ones suggests a lack of conviction in not offending people until they made a public response unavoidable).

One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job. And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

No, he's getting sued by the mass shooting victims not the other way around.

He's counter-sueing them for attorney's fees

Schadrach:
For example there was a case in Canada...

Yes, there are always 'those cases', for every crime in existence, everywhere. After all, this is not a perfect world.

What I'm far more interested in is the general, overall picture. A few representative anecdotes can be useful to help illustrate a wider trend, but on their own without wider context are liable to be unrepresentative and used for misinformation.

ex951753:

Saelune:

runic knight:

Your distinction is that Gunn stopped being offensive to you where as Jones did not? That again is nothing but your personal opinion, and I do not think your personal opinion is a good measure of determining the rights of someone to speak freely, or if the censoring of that right is justified.

As I said before, the comparison is based on censorship based on offensive words. In both cases, being offended was justification for the response. You are making a special plea that time has a factor to consider here (one that is itself tenuous at best, given the apology for other offensive tweets while still not removing the pedophilia ones suggests a lack of conviction in not offending people until they made a public response unavoidable).

One, it is a fact. Alex Jones didn't quit being a nut job. And two, if personal opinion is not enough, then why does yours matter more than mine?

Offended? HE SUED MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS! That's way beyond 'offended' dude.

No, he's getting sued by the mass shooting victims not the other way around.

Actually he did counter sue the shooting victims, claiming they should pay for his legal fees.

I think his political opinions aside he deserves to be banned from everything just for being a snake oil salesman. Im sorry but I dont think freedom of speech should extend to the topic of health because making people sick and waste their money because they believe your lies which unlike much in politics these lies are provably wrong. You can argue for either side in morality but in science there is a right and wrong answer.

Seems like a lot of free speech absolutists object only when it's some awful right-wing hack losing a platform, but not when people from regularly marginalized groups (communists, boycott/divestment/sanctions supporters, others on the left) are banned.

If you think that Facebook et al. should be treated like a quasi-governmental entity-- an entirely content neutral entity with no blame or authority over what is posted on it-- then I can agree, but only if this principle is maintained consistently. If, on the other hand, you think that Alex Jones should be free to say what he's been saying but that Facebook et al. should retain some editorial authority or moderation power, then I cannot agree. If your argument turns on the idea that Facebook et al. have too much power over what people are allowed to see, but your solution is simply to say that "they should let AJ say whatever he wishes", then your proposal is worthless at best, crass and disingenuous playing of the referees at worst.

Seanchaidh:
Seems like a lot of free speech absolutists object only when it's some awful right-wing hack losing a platform, but not when people from regularly marginalized groups (communists, boycott/divestment/sanctions supporters, others on the left) are banned.

If you think that Facebook et al. should be treated like a quasi-governmental entity-- an entirely content neutral entity with no blame or authority over what is posted on it-- then I can agree, but only if this principle is maintained consistently. If, on the other hand, you think that Alex Jones should be free to say what he's been saying but that Facebook et al. should retain some editorial authority or moderation power, then I cannot agree. If your argument turns on the idea that Facebook et al. have too much power over what people are allowed to see, but your solution is simply to say that "they should let AJ say whatever he wishes", then your proposal is worthless at best, crass and disingenuous playing of the referees at worst.

Facebook is no different than your local pub. You are not entitled to go down to your local pub or diner and spout off whatever you like. If Alex Jones went down there ans said what he said about Sandy Hook there he would tossed on his arse. The same should happen whether it is a shopping mall, diner, grocery store or on social media.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences and you are not entitled to say/ do whatever you like wherever you like. " fighting words" are illegal for good reason. Inciting violence is illegal for good reason. This is no different.

Facebook is no different than your local pub. Even if it is the only pub in your town, they still have the right to toss you for behaving like a jack ass.

OT: FCC shut down Alex Jones Flagship Radio Station broadcasting from a crumbling apartment complex

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission has shut down a pirate radio station that served as the flagship outlet for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

The Austin American-Statesman reports the FCC also has fined the station's operators $15,000 - a fine the FCC says in a lawsuit the operators are refusing to pay.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin alleges Liberty Radio operated on a channel without a license since at least 2013. The lawsuit names as defendants Walter Olenick and M. Rae Nadler-Olenick.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/08/16/fcc-shuts-alex-jones-pirate-flagship-radio-station/

Even if the DDoS attacks on the site are Alex's own work, this goes far beyond Jones himself. In the past week we've seen other altmedia channels falsely struck despite not breaking any rules, we've seen sites ban InfoWars without breaking any rules, and we've seen Mastercard force Patreon to shut down a user that Patreon had no issue with through threats that go beyond what is probably within the sphere of legal business transactions.

It's kind of amusing watching all this, the libertarian movement has practically died overnight, but it isn't marching to the left. At this point I don't even care if this is a conspiracy within the tech industry or if it's due to irrational behaviour in response to the beginning of the slowmotion train crash that is the techbubble 2.0 bursting (Twitter and Facebook are both currently in a state where they're only held afloat by hedge-funds run by people who don't realise that selling this instant is the only rational course of action with their stock of them), whichever of the two is responsible (and it is one or the other, you don't wait years to punish someone for something and just so happen to have it be on the same day as all your rivals make that same delayed course of action) changes nothing, this in the short, medium and long term has only harmed the technofascists and this whole ordeal has been another victory in the wider culture war for the right. Can't say I'm complaining, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake, it's impolite after all.

Zontar:
Even if the DDoS attacks on the site are Alex's own work, this goes far beyond Jones himself. In the past week we've seen other altmedia channels falsely struck despite not breaking any rules, we've seen sites ban InfoWars without breaking any rules, and we've seen Mastercard force Patreon to shut down a user that Patreon had no issue with through threats that go beyond what is probably within the sphere of legal business transactions.

It's kind of amusing watching all this, the libertarian movement has practically died overnight, but it isn't marching to the left. At this point I don't even care if this is a conspiracy within the tech industry or if it's due to irrational behaviour in response to the beginning of the slowmotion train crash that is the techbubble 2.0 bursting (Twitter and Facebook are both currently in a state where they're only held afloat by hedge-funds run by people who don't realise that selling this instant is the only rational course of action with their stock of them), whichever of the two is responsible (and it is one or the other, you don't wait years to punish someone for something and just so happen to have it be on the same day as all your rivals make that same delayed course of action) changes nothing, this in the short, medium and long term has only harmed the technofascists and this whole ordeal has been another victory in the wider culture war for the right. Can't say I'm complaining, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake, it's impolite after all.

I'd point out that this has been going on for years. Adpocalypse 1 and 2 decimated a lot of channels that werent related to the actual incidents. Youtube's decision to restrict ads and recommendation to high volume and viewer channels sqaushed a lot of smaller ones. Advertisers have demanded to be in control. People on the Left have been attacked just as much as the Right.

Pretending Jones is an isolated incident is false. It could be the last straw. I dont know where everyone will go, but pretending that Jones was the deciding factor doesnt tell a complete story. I expect fragmentation. And more forceful and authoritative Libertarians

Seanchaidh:
And I imagine some people will want to talk about it.

Good riddance, I suppose, although I shudder to think where the censors will go next. Judging by Twitter, I estimate that everything to the left of Reagan will lack any social media presence by 2021.

Note: the following is a joke, not his actual reaction.

This is a guy that has a platform of likely thousands of insane people and effectively propagated the pizzagate myth with the rhetoric of violent madmen used to attack the place in the first place.

And to top it off in acourt hesaid he doesn't even believe the crap he peddles.

It's one thing that if he was just a madman himself, the fact that he knew better is what is dangerous. And whether or not that should be criminal is secondary to whether private companies should decide to have to bother to put up with it.

What hehad effectively done, and propagated, against the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy should annihilate any public good will of pretending like he deserve the tolerance of multiple publicly accessible, privately owned soapboxes for which are ostensibly free of charge to operate. The fact that he flogs certifiably dangerous and baseless products on his channel which rank up there with some ofthe worst excesses of the healthcare sector should also tarnish any belief he legitimately believes in anything 'left of Reagan'.

trunkage:
I'd point out that this has been going on for years. Adpocalypse 1 and 2 decimated a lot of channels that werent related to the actual incidents. Youtube's decision to restrict ads and recommendation to high volume and viewer channels sqaushed a lot of smaller ones. Advertisers have demanded to be in control. People on the Left have been attacked just as much as the Right.

Yes this has been going on for years, but not this hard, not this openly, and not with this much of an attempt to purge people from the internet and make it impossible to create their content (Patreon is the lifeblood of creators now, at least until Mastercard began using intimidation tactics on them to purge Islamic Reformists from their service). It should also be noted that the right gets it worst, the left has no equivalent to the Jones purge despite having equivalents to Jones, though I suppose only time will tell if this is a case of it being one sided or if it's a case of the right getting it first.

Pretending Jones is an isolated incident is false. It could be the last straw. I dont know where everyone will go, but pretending that Jones was the deciding factor doesnt tell a complete story. I expect fragmentation. And more forceful and authoritative Libertarians

Government intervention is inevitable at this point, too many people on both the left and the right are in agreement that it's necessary at this point given the clear collusion at work in the tech industry. No one outside of Silicon Valley wants to see them dictate anything, let alone the internet (no one sane anyway). Also odd how much has been happening this week, Mad Max Bernier has been dropping inconvenient truths about the current state of politics up here, statements that have been getting 80%+ approval despite being well outside the overton window of Canadian politics, and the party is stuck between a rock and a hard place because they can't kick him out because he controls the largest wing of the party (and had it not been for ballot stuffing would have been the party leader right now), but if they keep him then he'll continue to force a return to sanity in Canadian politics.

Seems odd this would happen now of all times. Could be a coincidence, but I don't think so, the timing just feels too perfect.

Zontar:
Even if the DDoS attacks on the site are Alex's own work, this goes far beyond Jones himself. In the past week we've seen other altmedia channels falsely struck despite not breaking any rules, we've seen sites ban InfoWars without breaking any rules, and we've seen Mastercard force Patreon to shut down a user that Patreon had no issue with through threats that go beyond what is probably within the sphere of legal business transactions.

It's kind of amusing watching all this, the libertarian movement has practically died overnight, but it isn't marching to the left. At this point I don't even care if this is a conspiracy within the tech industry or if it's due to irrational behaviour in response to the beginning of the slowmotion train crash that is the techbubble 2.0 bursting (Twitter and Facebook are both currently in a state where they're only held afloat by hedge-funds run by people who don't realise that selling this instant is the only rational course of action with their stock of them), whichever of the two is responsible (and it is one or the other, you don't wait years to punish someone for something and just so happen to have it be on the same day as all your rivals make that same delayed course of action) changes nothing, this in the short, medium and long term has only harmed the technofascists and this whole ordeal has been another victory in the wider culture war for the right. Can't say I'm complaining, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake, it's impolite after all.

Who exactly is " your enemy" here? The people kicking him out for behaving like an arse? This is no different than local pubs all agreeing to not serve a guy for being a jerk, casinos do the same thing and it is within their rights to do so.

Lil devils x:
Who exactly is " your enemy" here? The people kicking him out for behaving like an arse?

Silicon Valley Technofascists

Zontar:

Lil devils x:
Who exactly is " your enemy" here? The people kicking him out for behaving like an arse?

Silicon Valley Technofascists

How are they any different than a bunch of pubs refusing to serve a guy because he keeps behaving like an arse everywhere he goes?

Lil devils x:
Facebook is no different than your local pub.

Patently absurd. A Pew poll in 2016 did not find that 44% of US adults get their news from ONE PARTICULAR "local pub".

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Facebook is no different than your local pub.

Patently absurd.

1) They both allow friends, family and strangers to communicate with one another and share many things.
2) They both are open to the public.
3) They both have the right to kick you out for behaving like an arse.
4) They both can communicate with other like businesses to warn them of a disruptive guest so they can take proper action before something worse happens.

It really is no different, and it is good that the same things that are applied in person are finally being applied to places on the internet and treating it the same as anywhere else. That is long overdue.

 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