Alex Jones finally pulled from several major online media sites

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

However, it is a little concerning that all these major platforms colluded together to silence him for no specific recent offence (unless I have missed something).

Just for clarification, this is not what happened. To pull a Trump: “No collusion!”

Facebook and YouTube have been removing selected episodes/posts and handing out essentially our version of the “infraction” for months, but have avoided removing him altogether.

Apple simply acted, which caused a ripple effect that the others acted within. When Apple does something, it suddenly becomes a lot safer for others to follow suit, and that’s what happened with platforms that have struggled with what is and isn’t over the line.

Jones’ offences have been frequent (recently history included), and he is in the midst of a very high profile lawsuit right now which has probably played a big role in this happening now.

Categorising this as a bunch of businesses colluding to limit free speech is certainly how it’s going to be pitched by the alt-right conspiracy theorists that Jones has emboldened, but there’s no evidence that even suggests that was true (especially if you believe that high profile tech companies constantly watch each other for cues in navigating the industry, which is true).

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

And you can still go to his website and view his content, can you not?

I have no clue never been to it. It doesn't change the fact that these large social media platforms are censoring him from their platforms. I don't see why some of you are in total DENIAL. You can easily say it is censorship and he deserves it but nope.

[GGG]

Before everyone had access to the internet the line was what the mainstream media was willing to publish or what you would pay to put out there.

It’s only recently that the crazy person with a megaphone got a megaphone that could reach millions. So from a free speech perspective Jones speech is no more impaired than it was 10 years ago. Essentially Alex Jones does not pay enough money to access YouTube. The damage he causes their brand is greater than the money he brings in for them.

If a TV station didn’t play your add because you didn’t have enough money no one would blink an eye. Now that the internet give everything away for “free” people for get that there is still an exchange of goods happening. And today YouTube decided that Alex Jones doesn’t pay. So it’s not censorship, it’s business

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I have no clue never been to it. It doesn't change the fact that these large social media platforms are censoring him from their platforms. I don't see why some of you are in total DENIAL. You can easily say it is censorship and he deserves it but nope.

If I'm at a bar and screaming my face off about some shadow people conspiracy, the bouncer comes over and warns me to stop, and then I continue doing it and they toss me out, is that censorship?

They have content policies. He violated them multiple times. His account was terminated.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just for clarification, this is not what happened. To pull a Trump: “No collusion!”

Facebook and YouTube have been removing selected episodes/posts and handing out essentially our version of the “infraction” for months, but have avoided removing him altogether.

Apple simply acted, which caused a ripple effect that the others acted within. When Apple does something, it suddenly becomes a lot safer for others to follow suit, and that’s what happened with platforms that have struggled with what is and isn’t over the line.

Jones’ offences have been frequent (recently history included), and he is in the midst of a very high profile lawsuit right now which has probably played a big role in this happening now.

Categorising this as a bunch of businesses colluding to limit free speech is certainly how it’s going to be pitched by the alt-right conspiracy theorists that Jones has emboldened, but there’s no evidence that even suggests that was true (especially if you believe that high profile tech companies constantly watch each other for cues in navigating the industry, which is true).

Yes, my apologies, I think you are correct.

It looks like these platforms didn't provide specific events to justify banning Alex Jones, so I interpreted that as being there was no specific event. Looking further however, it does seem there were some very recent events (AJ tried to circumvent his streaming ban on YT) that led to this action.

So it's pretty simple then. Alex Jones broke the rules of these platforms and this was apparently his last strike.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I have no clue never been to it. It doesn't change the fact that these large social media platforms are censoring him from their platforms. I don't see why some of you are in total DENIAL. You can easily say it is censorship and he deserves it but nope.

But it’s not. These platforms are not a free-for-all, you still have to abide by their rules.

Why do you think people get banned on Calgary Puck? Is it censorship? Or are there a set of rules which we all must abide, and if you violate them, you get punished?

Jones was removed because of a high profile history of violating community rules on all of these platforms. What should be most telling is that in their commitment to PROTECTING free speech, they allowed Jones to continue doing so DESPITE those violations. Jones has survived as long as he has because these platforms have protected him AGAINST censorship, and they aren’t censoring him now.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

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

And i am no fan of Alex Jones.

It's not censorship any more than if Calgarypuck banned someone or edited their posts for not following the community guidelines.

He signed up for it and didn't follow his end of the bargain.

[opendoor]

The real problem is that a few massive corporations can dictate the public discourse. Sure in this case, it's nice to see a piece of **** like Jones have fewer venues to spread his trash, but it does highlight what I think is a major problem these days. Social media companies have long straddled the line between being a carrier or a communications company on the one hand versus being a publisher on the other. They want the freedom from regulation and responsibility for content like a traditional communications company would have while curating, profiting from, and promoting specific content in a way that a publisher might normally do.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But it’s not. These platforms are not a free-for-all, you still have to abide by their rules.

Why do you think people get banned on Calgary Puck? Is it censorship? Or are there a set of rules which we all must abide, and if you violate them, you get punished?

Jones was removed because of a high profile history of violating community rules on all of these platforms. What should be most telling is that in their commitment to PROTECTING free speech, they allowed Jones to continue doing so DESPITE those violations. Jones has survived as long as he has because these platforms have protected him AGAINST censorship, and they aren’t censoring him now.

Yes I agree there is certain level of censorship that goes on all the time across variety of platforms for good reasons

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not censorship any more than if Calgarypuck banned someone or edited their posts for not following the community guidelines.

He signed up for it and didn't follow his end of the bargain.

Yes i agree he has no one to blame but himself for being censored.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes i agree he has no one to blame but himself for being censored.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I have no clue never been to it. It doesn't change the fact that these large social media platforms are censoring him from their platforms. I don't see why some of you are in total DENIAL. You can easily say it is censorship and he deserves it but nope.

Its because it is not censorship. These are private interests that host media content for sale or for generation of profit. As part of using their services you agree to end user agreements which clearly state the type of products they are willing to distribute. They, as private interests, have the right to control whatever media they host and distribute under their banner. They have that right as a private company, and any individual submitting their media content to these services agree to allow them to regulate that distribution in any manner of their choosing. They have the right to remove content they determine as offensive, or even just poorly representing their company values or brand. Again, this is their right. Because it is a private interest, this is not censorship in any way. It would be like claiming that because CP elected to ban you, they are censoring you. They have that right as it is their service and they can control the messages distributed on their platform.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not censorship any more than if Calgarypuck banned someone or edited their posts for not following the community guidelines.

He signed up for it and didn't follow his end of the bargain.

That's essentially it: he violated their policies, and got enough strikes against.

[Derek Sutton]

First of I do find Alex quite entertaining. I also know for a fact that many others have had their YouTube accents canceled for lot less. If his "news" and being heard means that much to him, he could easily take down his paywall and be un censored for all to hear.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

First of I do find Alex quite entertaining

Entertaining like watching Faces of Death or like watching Dr. Pimple Popper? Both are about on the same intellectual level.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The real problem is that a few massive corporations can dictate the public discourse.

That’s not a problem, as by signing up to use the services of these corporations, you agree to their terms and conditions.

Can you give an example of how public discourse was dictated over the past 24 hours by these corporations? Just one?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you give an example of how public discourse was dictated over the past 24 hours by these corporations? Just one?

Agenda setting theory does state the mass media does greatly influence the public discourse, and the order and length they spend on a story determines how much we talk about it. In reality, this actually is the function of the news departments, to determine the top stories of the day, then present them to us in order of importance. Where it gets bastardized is when someone in the producer's seat (or corporate office like they do at Fox and Sinclair) determines what is most important according to their agenda. Based on the position and time a story is given media consumers then accept the importance of that issue by this means. Fox has mastered this, and drives the behaviors of their viewers with this practice.

So while the vast majority of the zeitgeist will be discussing the Gates testimony and the destruction of Paul Manafort, California burning to the ground, and Trump's latest meltdown, the Fox News set will still be regaling each other with the unfair censoring of Alex Jones, Trump persecution complex, and Hilary's emails. Agenda setting at its finest.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s not a problem, as by signing up to use the services of these corporations, you agree to their terms and conditions.

How is an essential oligopoly in this area by a few companies with virtually no government regulation not a problem? Mass media has been replaced by social media, yet none of the regulation that held media to a modicum of standards exists for these companies.

Can you give an example of how public discourse was dictated over the past 24 hours by these corporations? Just one?

24 hours? Who the hell knows? But did you not just watch the last election where advertisers could spread lies to wide reaching audiences with no repercussions? And these companies were happy to take the money of whomever would pay them to provide viewers for these lies.

These companies want to provide and curate content to sell ad space without the responsibility that every other publisher has to live up to with regards to accuracy or libellous content. If you don't see why that's a problem then I don't know what to say.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by New Era

So while the vast majority of the zeitgeist will be discussing the Gates testimony and the destruction of Paul Manafort, California burning to the ground, and Trump's latest meltdown, the Fox News set will still be regaling each other with the unfair censoring of Alex Jones, Trump persecution complex, and Hilary's emails. Agenda setting at its finest.

Despite your sweeping conjecture, neither of Fox's 2 biggest shows Tucker or Hannity mentioned Alex Jones or Hillary Clinton even once tonight. And Hannity had a full segment on day 5 of the Manafort trial.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

Entertaining like watching Faces of Death or like watching Dr. Pimple Popper? Both are about on the same intellectual level.

Thanked for your comparative reference to the deplorable Dr Pimple Popper. Who honestly can bear to watch that ####?