Alex Jones finally pulled from several major online media sites

[GreenLantern2814]

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.

One of these things has actually happened, repeatedly.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

Why do you not think YouTube et al should have the right to disassociate themselves from objectionable people that violate their TOS?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why do you not think YouTube et al should have the right to disassociate themselves from objectionable people that violate their TOS?

Their TOS are written in a way that effectively allows them to arbitrarily ban almost anything of a political nature.

They are a private company and do have that right. It's not a move I support though. As stated, formats like YouTube have taken on a life of their own and effectively act like their own media formats.

[PsYcNeT]

Does Infowars not host their own videos?

[PsYcNeT]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1026805202580647936

https://twitter.com/user/status/1026923303775162370

Infowars "reporters" don't understand the difference between publicly-traded and publicly-owned apparently.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

Of course there is.

The former is what happens regularly, the latter is when happens when you show you have complete disregard for the former.

My argument is based on the premise that, if you agree to the TOS and accept what any given platform (in life or on the internet) seems censor-worthy, then you accept that the content will be censored. If you frequently and flagrantly ignore that, and despite repeated warnings and issuings of correction, continue to act in defiance of that, you deserve to lose your place on the platform.

It’s not accepting censorship without questioning it, it’s recognising that you can’t ignore what you agreed to and expect no consequences to ever arise.

If censorship in this context is so bad, why weren’t people questioning it when the TOS were laid out? What about when other posts/people have been banned from a platform? What about before Jones was banned in the months of warning leading up to this? Why now?

Jones was given literally 100s of chances to correct behaviour that the platforms he was using warned him against, but it’s suddenly an issue because people realised there are consequences to breaking rules when you break them over and over and over?

What about someone who breaks speeds? Should they just get the same charge over and over and over without any consequence for showing they’re a bad driver unwilling or incapable of improvement? No, we have demerits, because that’s how society works. You don’t get unlimited chances to break the rules without ever being labelled a problem.

[RichKlit]

I’m just curious was he banned due to the fact he says absolutely awful things? Or was he banned because he says truly awful things and has a huge following? Just a quick glance around places like YouTube and Twitter and you can find vile things said about everybody from everybody. Sorry if it’s been answered or if it’s a dumb question but I don’t want to read through every page and I’m not huge on social media and I’ve listened to Alex Jones for maybe 5-10 minutes max.

[RichKlit]

I guess I should also ask is he the only one who repeatedly says the kinds things that are ban worthy?

[direwolf]

The responses to those Millie Weaver tweets are hilarious.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by direwolf

The responses to those Millie Weaver tweets are hilarious.

Publicly traded is not the same thing as publicly owned.
The latter is what’s happening to you today
@cartoon_magoo

[Maritime Q-Scout]

[Fuzz]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/alex...776763?cmp=rss


Neil Macdonald with a good article on this.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It also very interesting that his happens on the same day as this....smoke screen?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/faceboo...ers-1533564049

This was very interesting timing on multiple counts

1. I think this definitely was a smokescreen
2. This comes after Facebook 'took a bullet' in the stock market to push the message that they are focusing on privacy.

I'm glad I've suspended (haven't pulled the delete trigger yet) my FB account, and encourage you all to do the same. The amount of information they already collect is terrifying, and this pretty much seals it.

I have to hope this is blocked, and FB receives the negative PR they should for even trying this.

[Lanny_McDonald]

[Ashasx]

nm