Alex Jones finally pulled from several major online media sites

[Senator Clay Davis]

Lol

https://twitter.com/user/status/1026845192354193411

[CaptainCrunch]

At the end of the day, this is the best thing that's going to happen to Jones, I mean he's going to frame this as a liberal conspiracy against the truf. The everyone is out to get us, the only people who knows whats going on and this conspiracy against Jones goes to the top because he's gotten too close to exposing the truth. And now we need to go to war against Twitter and youtube and all of the sheeple out there.


And the best way to fight that war is to buy the Alex Jones supplements and books and videos and loose change v213.



And if you think the angry conspiracy nuts are just going to give up on what they're doing? They're going to be more righteous in their crusade maaannn!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is this more helpful? What is libel and slander is not necessarily clear, and to be determined by a court in each set of circumstances.

That's true, but there are at least a set of well-defined legal standards - that is, a mutually agreed upon legal definition - for libel and slander. We're all agreed on what the terms mean, at least, which isn't the case for "hate speech".

So if a platform says they've censured someone for libel, they can say, "here's the definition of libel, here's what the person in question said, and here's why we think it meets the definition". If that's spelled out reasonably, then the conclusion, even if debatable, is at least rationally supported and not a matter of someone's whim.

So I do think it's more helpful, not to say that it's the right answer necessarily.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I can't wait for his conspiracy theory on how Johnny Cash actually wrote this song back in 1993, but the globalists and lizard people stole it and gave it to Trent Reznor, and that really, the "cover" Johnny did was actually his victory speech after defeating the globalists....or some such ####

https://twitter.com/user/status/277968076950077441

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

If you're the type of person who is okay with sources that allow non-subject matter experts to contribute to the body of knowledge that establish the basis for which millions use for their baseline understanding of issues, then okay, we know the depths to which you will go to distill the facts - in a very slight figurative sense of course.

Just busting your chops SebC. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, with the above caveat. Wikipedia should be your stepping off point - a place to find the most basic of information on a subject, and establish the artifacts which distill the facts on an issue from actual primary sources of information. Wikipedia is a worse version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'm a big believer in the wisdom of crowds.

One can argue that the nature of language is such that words means what the crowds think they mean (screw you people who think literally means figuratively). Also, I found other sources that didn't specify at all who can censor, corroborating wiki's assertion that non-governmental actors can be censors. That's also something that's obvious just by thinking a bit. Self-censorship is a thing, and I am not a government.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SebC

One can argue that the nature of language is such that words means what the crowds think they mean (screw you people who think literally means figuratively). Also, I found other sources that didn't specify at all who can censor, corroborating wiki's assertion that non-governmental actors can be censors. That's also something that's obvious just by thinking a bit. Self-censorship is a thing, and I am not a government.

I agree with this, and I think the issue around what exact sort of censorship we’re talking about stems from comments like this:

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Censorship never ends in the result you want it.....

Originally Posted by N-E-B

It’s a slippery slope but I think I’m okay with this one.

Originally Posted by zamler

Some of you may cheer now and think it's great but at some point censorship is going to bite you in the ass as well.

Nothing good will come of this.

What this has been an example of is that basic “censorship” exists everyday, there are things you can and cannot say, and that holds true whether you’re posting on social media (including here), at work, in the media, at school, even just in a relationship. There is really no such thing as a reality where we are completely uncensored.

What this is NOT, is a slippery slope, a situation where “nothing good will come of this,” a situation where we should be worried that “censorship” in this form will one day come for us because... newsflash... it’s already here and been here for basically ever. To suggest this is a kind of censorship beyond what each and every one of us have been subject to since birth, is flat out wrong, and certainly not an example of some future of censorship that should concern anyone at all.

I can’t say #### on Calgary puck because it’s censored. I can post pornography on Facebook because it’s censored. I can’t talk to clients at work in a certain way or I will be censored. This is censorship only in the idea that there are certain rules we agree to abide by in society, and if we violate those rules, we are censored to some degree.

If you break those rules, you get censored. Anybody who believes they live a life uncensored is fooling themselves most of all, and all this situation was an example of is that if you break the rules you agreed to, you face the consequences you agreed to face by participating.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day, this is the best thing that's going to happen to Jones, I mean he's going to frame this as a liberal conspiracy against the truf. The everyone is out to get us, the only people who knows whats going on and this conspiracy against Jones goes to the top because he's gotten too close to exposing the truth. And now we need to go to war against Twitter and youtube and all of the sheeple out there.


And the best way to fight that war is to buy the Alex Jones supplements and books and videos and loose change v213.



And if you think the angry conspiracy nuts are just going to give up on what they're doing? They're going to be more righteous in their crusade maaannn!

It's good for Jones in the short term, as he is definitely going to work the fools that follow him over for more of their money.

In the longer term, however, his no longer being on these platforms will dramatically diminish his outreach, and hopefully reduce the number of other other suckers from being drawn in.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's good for Jones in the short term, as he is definitely going to work the fools that follow him over for more of their money.

In the longer term, however, his no longer being on these platforms will dramatically diminish his outreach, and hopefully reduce the number of other other suckers from being drawn in.

His YouTube channel was generating millions of dollars for him. I don't think it's possible that this is anything but extremely damaging for him in the short term.

Or maybe he gets a Sinclair broadcasting spot and become rush 2.0

[FlameOn]

Yea Apple and Google haven't banned the Infowars app yet. That needs to go before Alex Jones is truly on his knees.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17...-ban-downloads

Sadly his followers are already flocking to it

Infowars Official, the app named after Alex Jones’ controversial radio talk show, has become the fourth most popular news app in the United States that’s currently available in the iOS App Store, according to public rankings. It was the 47th most popular just two days ago.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you break those rules, you get censored.

Thanks pal!

[PsYcNeT]

Imagine being so sad that Alex Jones is the hill you pick to die on.

[PsYcNeT]

Also

https://twitter.com/user/status/1026881345824464897

[direwolf]

Infowars Official, the app named after Alex Jones’ controversial radio talk show, has become the fourth most popular news app in the United States that’s currently available in the iOS App Store, according to public rankings. It was the 47th most popular just two days ago.

Trump's America in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. Unreal.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree with this, and I think the issue around what exact sort of censorship we’re talking about stems from comments like this:







What this has been an example of is that basic “censorship” exists everyday, there are things you can and cannot say, and that holds true whether you’re posting on social media (including here), at work, in the media, at school, even just in a relationship. There is really no such thing as a reality where we are completely uncensored.

What this is NOT, is a slippery slope, a situation where “nothing good will come of this,” a situation where we should be worried that “censorship” in this form will one day come for us because... newsflash... it’s already here and been here for basically ever. To suggest this is a kind of censorship beyond what each and every one of us have been subject to since birth, is flat out wrong, and certainly not an example of some future of censorship that should concern anyone at all.

I can’t say #### on Calgary puck because it’s censored. I can post pornography on Facebook because it’s censored. I can’t talk to clients at work in a certain way or I will be censored. This is censorship only in the idea that there are certain rules we agree to abide by in society, and if we violate those rules, we are censored to some degree.

If you break those rules, you get censored. Anybody who believes they live a life uncensored is fooling themselves most of all, and all this situation was an example of is that if you break the rules you agreed to, you face the consequences you agreed to face by participating.

I do think there is a difference between banning select posts and banning someone entirely. The examples you've referred to have to do with universally accepted standards of decency or appropriate behaviour within private work environments, where you are representing the company you work for as agent. You're argument is based on the premise that we've already accepted some kinds of censorship, and that means we should accept other forms of censorship without questioning it.

This whole issue does raise an interesting issue. Sources like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are private. Yet, they are so universally used, that they have taken on a life of their own and have more in common with infrastructure like radio or telephones than just mere websites.

Personally, I can't stand Alex Jones. That being said, I can't stand censorship either. The vast majority of what Alex Jones says is not illegal or does not reach the threshold of hate speech. If Youtube is now going to outright ban people because they have made offensive comments, that doesn't sit quite right with me.

Going back to the issue of what kinds of censorship we should accept. The answer should always be as little as possible. There are instances where obscenity and interference with other rights (ex. promoting violence) require censorship. But is what Alex Jones is saying fit either of those categories?

[para transit fellow]

For Mr Jones and his entourage to speak of censorship, I find it humorous that the Infowars TOS apparently has a line:

"You are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."


Note: I haven't had the time to confirm it myself -- because I don't particularly want to visit the infowars website.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blankall

There are instances where obscenity and interference with other rights (ex. promoting violence) require censorship. But is what Alex Jones is saying fit either of those categories?

Calling the Sandy Hook shooting fake is obscene.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm still not seeing where Jones was censored. Did the government ransack the Infowars offices and shut down his website?

If anything, he just had his volume turned down, which is fine because his megaphone was given to him for free, and then he started farting into it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Calling the Sandy Hook shooting fake is obscene.

Once again we're dealing with degrees of censorship and obscenity. Arguing that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked is not obscene in the same way that showing penetrative sex in a child's movie is obscene. Sandy Hook arguments are just really offensive, have no merit, and are flat out stupid.

Once again, it's my position that sources like YouTube should referee as little as possible. I guess I'm free to go to or start my own private streaming site without any rules. I won't be doing that, as those sites will just end being a concentrated pool of Alex Jones types.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again we're dealing with degrees of censorship and obscenity. Arguing that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked is not obscene in the same way that showing penetrative sex in a child's movie is obscene. Sandy Hook arguments are just really offensive, have no merit, and are flat out stupid.

I’m specific to the definitions of words that are chosen. Obscenity is not restricted to describing things that are sexual in nature.

Anyways, again he violated rules and was punished accordingly. YouTube has no obligation to have a free for all. They are a business and operate on ad revenue. They are not a free speech platform.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Also

https://twitter.com/user/status/1026881345824464897

Unfortunately the inverse is also true. Many progressives are so happy to see Jones shut out that they have no problem taking up a neoconservative position of defending the rights of oligopolies run by billionaires to operate with little government oversight or regulation on the basis that an unfettered free market is a desirable outcome.

It's quite possible to think that Alex Jones is a vile loser who spews trash to a bunch of rubes while also simultaneously feeling that increased corporatization and monopolization of media and communication among a very few private businesses is a bad thing and something that needs to be changed.