The Purge - Not the Movie - Alex Jones fromSocial Media

[toonces11]

There's a difference between hyper-partisan commentators and peddling dangerous, clearly unhinged conspiracy-theorists. I think Limbaugh is pretty terrible for our national discourse and appeals to the lowest-common-denominator on the right, but he's nowhere near an Alex Jones.

I believe in Alex Jones' first amendment right to free speech. I don't have any problem whatsoever with private companies refusing him access to their platform for violations of their terms of service.

Also, private institutions and large swaths of citizens ostracizing hateful people is exactly how the free market is supposed to work. True small-government conservatives should have no problem agreeing with that.

I think both you and Datt have shown me...thru examples, that some are on a different level than others. I will concede that point. I was generally thinking how much damage can be done to moderation and bi-partisanship when you have highly visible guys spouting such partisan material to huge swaths of people. It might have started off as general jokes and barbs, points/counter points.....but it has evolved into just attacking the other side and never really listening

 

[Big_Blue79]

Also, private institutions and large swaths of citizens ostracizing hateful people is exactly how the free market is supposed to work. True small-government conservatives should have no problem agreeing with that.

Well very stated.

 

[SNU0821]

I'm sure you'll find extreme examples to prove your point (I'm sure they exist), but to most everyone I've seen the anthem issue is simply that the NFL should not punish protesters, not that the government should step in and force the owners to act a certain way. For social media, a lot of the "right" (not here as much as places like r/libertarian and similar) want to treat social media as de facto public forums and force, through the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (lyin' Rafael Cruz and his ilk), social media to act as the government would have to do had the government created similar social media platforms.

That's a pretty big difference. One is about public/market pressure to change positions, the other is about applying restrictions on private companies by way of the government. Now maybe you're not in that section of the right that I described, in which case good on you.

I don’t see it exactly how you described.

Again, I feel as though the restrictions on content over social media is skewed one way. It’s not applied equally to each side. With the size and influence social media now has, I think it’s important to be equal to both sides.

The NFL anthem protest is silly to me. You work for an employer. You can’t just say or do whatever you want. There are rules, restrictions, etc. to be followed. Owners recognized that the majority of fans don’t want to see the anthem protest stuff and it was hurting their ratings/numbers. It’s not a first amendment right issue. They simply made a business decision.

 

[Big_Blue79]

With the size and influence social media now has, I think it’s important to be equal to both sides.

Just so we're clear, you're okay with the government enforcing some sort of "equal to both sides" doctrine on privately owned social media platforms? What is a social media platform? Obviously you want FB on there, but what about Reddit? Buzzfeed comments? Tumblr? Snapchat? What size company must it be before the government enforces a neutrality mandate? How would that mandate be drafted? Enforced?

Most importantly, why isn't the better solution competition in the free market? Social media a low barrier to entry. From the sound and fury about this Alex Jones thing, sounds like there should be a vibrant market for a social media platform that allows any and all controversial figures and arguments. So just build it already and make your millions. If you're concerned about monopolies, I would suggest you support administrations that actually enforce antitrust laws, and push Congress for robust enforcement of antitrust laws in the social media space.

Also it's bizarre that you're so against net neutrality, which does the same thing you're arguing for here (equal access) but at a level where there are actual monopolies and quasi-monopolies and in an industry with effing huge barriers to entry. Your positions are inconsistent and seem to be based entirely on political ideology, while mine are based on the availability of competition in the free marketplace of ideas.

Edit: I assume you're also for the Fairness Doctrine, which Reagan removed?

 

[CardinalBoiler]

I think the problem that I have is normal conservatives are getting shadow banned, put on time out, etc. on multiple social media platforms. Candice Owens, who’s a black conservative woman, has been put on time out on Twitter multiple times. She doesn’t spew nonsense conspiracy theories online. She’s simply a conservative and it feels as though the conservative voices are being silenced on social media moreso than any liberals. There are plenty of extremists on the left that aren’t getting banned like Alex Jones or Candice Owens. To me, that’s the big problem. And it doesn’t seem as though I’m alone. Multiple senators grilled Zuckerberg of doing exactly what I explained.

Now that's a completely separate issue, and one I think Twitter needs to account for. I think that's the danger of these ubiquitous social media platforms is they can wield quite a bit of power over visibility.

However, I do want to mention that Owens and her partner Charlie Kirk are nothing more than fame-hungry grifters. As someone who identifies as a Republican, but agrees with fewer and fewer of the party's national positions, I'm far more worried by the mainstreaming of people like that on the right than whether some loons on the left are getting banned by Youtube.

Might be a difference to you, but it’s clear that a large portion of the country don’t like people kneeling during the anthem. I would argue that it’s abundently clear IT IS in the NFL’s best interest to stop players from protesting during the anthem. Ratings have tanked over the last few years and the anthem protests are a big reason (not the only). But also, the NFL teams are privately owned. If Jerry Jones wants to make his players stand, that’s his decision to make. People everywhere jumped on him for “suppressing the players’ first amendment rights” by doing so. If what’s happening on social media is ok, then what’s happening in the NFL needs to be ok as well. Can’t have it both ways, which is what liberals want...

You make a fair point about ratings, and there have been some polls to back that up. So from a purely business standpoint, it's been smart - at least in the short-run. But for a sport that is already facing an existential crisis due to the lingering effects of head trauma, I wonder how savvy it is to alienate a demographic that makes up such a large percentage of your players.

And my comment about Jerry Jones was about the recent video of him leaving his hat on during the anthem and having a conversation during the song. Seems a little incongruous to his hard-line stance for his players. But even so, his decision - or that of any owner - has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, as you correctly point out.

 

[TheDude1]

Not boo hooing. Just pointing out that it's pathetic that Silicon Valley is going to suppress any views but their own.

I'm actually more of a classical liberal and can't stand extremism on either side. Or the assholes in the republican and democrat establishments.

But the far left right now is a bunch of fascist, race-baiting hypocrites. Most would fully support a 1984-style police state in which all differing opinions are quelled and anyone offering them locked up. What's really twisted is that no one bothers to fact check anything that is said about a designated "conservative wackjob," so the mob prepares to burn someone at the stake over a horribly twisted or false statement. They know that facts aren't necessary so they take the liberty to lie their asses off to further their agenda against said person or group.

Nobody is bothering to fact check? Many of us... check that, some of us... have known about Jones for years, have followed his stuff, know about his custody battles... Alex Jones is a really, really well known figure whose stances are pretty famous and whose site, Infowars, is one of the most popular there are among right wing consumers. On a quick read through, I don't see anything here that has been said that is incorrect about him.

I have heard of Alex Jones. I didn't really know much about him, but I saw where he claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax. That's pretty pathetic. Why does it upset you that some people may have never heard of the guy? Is it not possible for someone to be interested in/concerned about politics, but not be so invested that they know every political nut job that has a platform? Your response is a complete overreaction fuelled by rage. I hope you slept it off and get this new day started on the right foot.

I'm not upset when people don't know about him, although I am shocked... Alex Jones is a very, very famous person... in terms of "conservative" personalities (and I hesitate to say he is conservative, although in the end that's usually where people put him) he is right up there near Glenn Beck in terms of fame. I DO get upset when people weigh in on a conversation about him WITHOUT knowing about him. Notice how I don't really jump into economic discussions, or legal discussions, or medical discussions? It's because I don't know a ton about them. If you don't know about the guy, don't go jumping into conversations about him without recognizing your shortcomings and acknowledging other peoples informed stances.

The guy is just a disgusting piece of garbage; the moment you start bashing the families of little kids who were killed by that POS Lanza, I turn on you pretty hard.

Although I did laugh at your post... just finished four 18 hour days with a total of like 6 of sleep. Might account for some of that irritability.

I know almost nothing about this guy except some 9/11 conspiracy and the sandy hook hoax theory. Why in God’s name would I. Is this guy even remotely mainstream? You claim it’s impossible someone wouldn’t know much about this guy.....but aren’t you the guy that proclaimed he didn’t know what antifa was?
I don’t care which place these guys are on the shithead list. They spend their lives driving a political wedge bt Americans by spewing biased info and insults for a living. They serve no purpose.

Yes, T, Alex Jones is one of the most famous "political" "entertainers" in existence today. Infowars is one of the most popular websites in America... it had roughly 20,000,000 visitors in July (twice as much as liberal "news" site Motherjones.com) is ranked four times higher than the top millennial news site Mic.com and higher than popular right wing media site The Blaze, and had roughly 2.5 million subscribers on Youtube. He is often spoke of in the same way as Glenn Beck, and has been interviewed by everyone from NPR to Meg Kelly to Howard Stern. He is very famous and, unfortunately, very influential. Donald Trump himself has been on his show, and in fact said "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.” That's pretty important, when the President of the United States tells a guy who said that 9/11 and OK City were done by the US government that his reputation is amazing.

And dude, when you don't know about the guy, but then legit try to compare this guy to someone like Jon Stewart, a comedian who does political commentary but who is informed and intelligent and, beyond that, known for doing a lot of charity and humanitarian work... it's a lot. If you don't know about him, just say that, and people who do can fill you in, and then you can comment, you know?

I agree with your second paragraph, for sure.

First time I heard his name. But I don't go looking for nuts and extremists to get my political information.

If you are informed about this sort of thing, media and politics, you know who Alex Jones is... and unfortunately for our country, lots of people DO go to him for political information

 

[toonces11]

Nobody is bothering to fact check? Many of us... check that, some of us... have known about Jones for years, have followed his stuff, know about his custody battles... Alex Jones is a really, really well known figure whose stances are pretty famous and whose site, Infowars, is one of the most popular there are among right wing consumers. On a quick read through, I don't see anything here that has been said that is incorrect about him.



I'm not upset when people don't know about him, although I am shocked... Alex Jones is a very, very famous person... in terms of "conservative" personalities (and I hesitate to say he is conservative, although in the end that's usually where people put him) he is right up there near Glenn Beck in terms of fame. I DO get upset when people weigh in on a conversation about him WITHOUT knowing about him. Notice how I don't really jump into economic discussions, or legal discussions, or medical discussions? It's because I don't know a ton about them. If you don't know about the guy, don't go jumping into conversations about him without recognizing your shortcomings and acknowledging other peoples informed stances.

The guy is just a disgusting piece of garbage; the moment you start bashing the families of little kids who were killed by that POS Lanza, I turn on you pretty hard.

Although I did laugh at your post... just finished four 18 hour days with a total of like 6 of sleep. Might account for some of that irritability.



Yes, T, Alex Jones is one of the most famous "political" "entertainers" in existence today. Infowars is one of the most popular websites in America... it had roughly 20,000,000 visitors in July (twice as much as liberal "news" site Motherjones.com) is ranked four times higher than the top millennial news site Mic.com and higher than popular right wing media site The Blaze, and had roughly 2.5 million subscribers on Youtube. He is often spoke of in the same way as Glenn Beck, and has been interviewed by everyone from NPR to Meg Kelly to Howard Stern. He is very famous and, unfortunately, very influential. Donald Trump himself has been on his show, and in fact said "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.” That's pretty important, when the President of the United States tells a guy who said that 9/11 and OK City were done by the US government that his reputation is amazing.

And dude, when you don't know about the guy, but then legit try to compare this guy to someone like Jon Stewart, a comedian who does political commentary but who is informed and intelligent and, beyond that, known for doing a lot of charity and humanitarian work... it's a lot. If you don't know about him, just say that, and people who do can fill you in, and then you can comment, you know?

I agree with your second paragraph, for sure.



If you are informed about this sort of thing, media and politics, you know who Alex Jones is... and unfortunately for our country, lots of people DO go to him for political information

I do like John Stewart and his wit...he is a very funny guy. The only thing I find unlikable about him is that he rarely calls his own side out...not that he doesn't, but the teeter totter is about 99 to 1. And if he is as intelligent as he comes off---he knows thats straight pandering to his audience.

I def did not know much about him.....or any of those websites you mentioned. Its obviously a sign that politics have gotten way out of hand if sites like that are getting that much traffic. And its where people are molding their political preferences. Do the terms liberal or conservative mean the same thing anymore? It seems both have more negative attachments than positive. Even being called a progressive doesn't mean what it meant a few years ago b/c of all the crazy ass people that get tossed into these groups.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Privately owned companies exerting control over their companies not in relation to a protected class. It's not even a precedent, let alone a scary one.



Cool that privately owned and operated companies are "going to have to" do what someone (SNU0821?) says because... reasons! Also it's like communism because... reasons! You know, communism that imposes its will through terror and a monopoly on violence, which is like totes the same as a privately owned company that competes in the free market. Totes. The. Same.



Why? Make an alternative platform. Plenty were concerned when Reddit started censoring the real cesspool subreddits (for example, one particularly racist subreddit called "coontown" or similar was removed), so some people started Voat. Voat is a terrible place full of terrible people and opinions, but it's the free market alternative to Reddit and it exists. Most people shun it because it's a toilet full of diarrhea, but it exists and gets some traffic. There are low barriers to entry for creating platforms (unlike, say, running wires to all homes ala an ISP). Just because those platforms are relatively underperforming doesn't mean they don't or can't exist. Sounds like the issue is about relative success, not access.



Partly correct; those cases are (were?) limited to certain types of establishments. It began with things like transportation (railroads, for example, have a very high barrier to entry, like ISPs) and hotels/restaurants. I'll see if I can dig the cases up later, but part of the rationale was barriers to entry.



No, that's not true despite Rafael Cruz's insistence (btw, he's pretty effing dumb for a lawyer... or intentionally misleading. Take what he says with giant grains of salt and you'll be better off.). Here's some reading (lawfareblog in particular is a terrific resource for a lot of legal issues).

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral
"Sen. Cruz seemed to be suggesting, incorrectly, that Facebook had to make a choice between enjoying protections for free speech under the First Amendment and enjoying the additional protections that Section 230 offers online platforms."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act
"There is no requirement that a platform remain neutral in order to maintain Section 230 immunity."



If only people of differing political opinions could enter the marketplace of ideas and compete! Oh, how nice that would be! Imagine just being able to, say, run the largest cable news network in the US and also purchase a giant social media website bigger than Facebook! Why, then, the onus would be on said purchaser to compete in the free market. Weird how that works in an industry with low barriers to entry, huh?

Edit: a nit

Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people. THE platforms. There is and will be nothing else that competes or compares. We all know this.

If they collaborate to eliminate views that differ from theirs (as many in alternative media fear) it'll have a major impact on public opinion and elections.

All of you think it's justified because it's "Alex Jones, the nut." Nevermind the fact that the extent of the knowledge most of you have about Jones is a few random, slanderous comments or out of context quotes that make him appear like a monster (granted, he makes it easy to do this). But this could and likely will go far beyond censoring Jones. And to support that is fascism.

The hypocrisy is annoying. I know all of you would be singing a different tune if a rightwing Silicon Valley were censoring leftists.

 

[BasketBallJunkie-UK]

Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people. THE platforms. There is and will be nothing else that competes or compares. We all know this.

If they collaborate to eliminate views that differ from theirs (as many in alternative media fear) it'll have a major impact on public opinion and elections.

All of you think it's justified because it's "Alex Jones, the nut." Nevermind the fact that the extent of the knowledge most of you have about Jones is a few random, slanderous comments or out of context quotes that make him appear like a monster (granted, he makes it easy to do this). But this could and likely will go far beyond censoring Jones. And to support that is fascism.

The hypocrisy is what's most annoying. I know all of you would be singing a different tune if a rightwing Silicon Valley were censoring leftists.

In reality, it is not the internet. They are companies, corporations. You keep singing the wrong tune. Just do a search in youtube, banned from youtube. You'll see lots of bannings taken place. They set the rules, the public doesn't. You can object to them by boycotting. But that's all you got bub....

 

[brooky03]

Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people. THE platforms. There is and will be nothing else that competes or compares. We all know this.

If they collaborate to eliminate views that differ from theirs (as many in alternative media fear) it'll have a major impact on public opinion and elections.

All of you think it's justified because it's "Alex Jones, the nut." Nevermind the fact that the extent of the knowledge most of you have about Jones is a few random, slanderous comments or out of context quotes that make him appear like a monster (granted, he makes it easy to do this). But this could and likely will go far beyond censoring Jones. And to support that is fascism.

The hypocrisy is annoying. I know all of you would be singing a different tune if a rightwing Silicon Valley were censoring leftists.

The 'slippery slope' argument is one of the most common logical fallacies. It's a way to avoid arguing the actual issue or action at hand.

Alex Jones does not simply present unpopular opinions about certain facts. He presents categorical falsehoods and does his best to pass off his extreme opinions as news. We've already seen some of the dangers of his conspiracy theories. Censoring him on platforms on which he does not have a Constitutional right to express his opinions is a good thing, not a bad thing. Saying that this censorship will go down a 'slippery slope' to blanket censorship of all views that the platforms do not agree with is not an argument based in logic and is not a sufficient argument to defend the position that Alex Jones should not be kicked off social media sites that choose to kick him off.

Again, this is not an issue of a Lefty company censoring a Righty. This is an issue of a company making an effort to be socially responsible in stopping what is unfortunately now called 'Fake News'. Alex Jones is the epitome of fake news. Considering the measurable effect that fake news in social media had on the recent election, I'd say that's not a bad effort to undertake.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people. THE platforms. There is and will be nothing else that competes or compares. We all know this.

If they collaborate to eliminate views that differ from theirs (as many in alternative media fear) it'll have a major impact on public opinion and elections.

All of you think it's justified because it's "Alex Jones, the nut." Nevermind the fact that the extent of the knowledge most of you have about Jones is a few random, slanderous comments or out of context quotes that make him appear like a monster (granted, he makes it easy to do this). But this could and likely will go far beyond censoring Jones. And to support that is fascism.

The hypocrisy is what's most annoying. I know all of you would be singing a different tune if a rightwing Silicon Valley were censoring leftists.

Point to where I said this was justified "because it's 'Alex Jones, the nut,'" or made any similar remarks. I didn't, but I'm curious to see what yarns you weave. It's justified because it's a privately owned company in a marketplace with a low barrier to entry (i.e. monopoly concerns are low). For similar reasons, your "hypocrisy" argument is out of place and irrelevant. (Maybe you meant to quote someone else, but you quoted my post and mischaracterized my position.)

Addressing the only issue on topic in your post - that "Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people" - you're arguing about success in the marketplace of ideas, not access. (I'd also contest the point entirely, but I'll assume it's true for purposes of argument) You can use things like DuckDuckGo, Vimeo, Twitch, Dailymotion, Voat, Reddit, the various Chan sites, and similar. Or start your own. There's apparently outrage about privately owned companies doing what they want on their privately owned platforms, so start your own and watch all the money flow in (or not, it's a free market). The barrier to entry is relatively low, and the rewards are high. It was only 13 years ago when Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace (which was bigger than FB at the time), after all. Who's to say what will happen in another few years? That's what's cool about the free market - it's responsive to ideas.

Look, there should be sites where various viewpoints are tolerated; I'm no fan of a homogeneous internet without a wide variety of ideas represented. But there are such sites, and there are low enough barriers to entry where a growth of sites (with the opposite biases of the current leaders) is not just possible but probable. I'm just not a fan of the government forcing private companies to enforce some type of ill-defined (and it would have to be) neutrality. Not only would that be an enforcement nightmare, it would be antithetical to the free speech and association that forms a bedrock of this country.

Now, if I wanted to engage in mudslinging based on irrelevant strawmen (like the last 2 paragraphs of your post), I'd say that conservatives seemed to be perfectly okay with eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and completely dominating talk radio for 30 plus years; conservative talk radio was "the" talk radio "for most people" for literal decades. But that's a poor comparison, primarily because the public owns the airwaves, which provided the hook for government regulation (right or wrong) in the first place.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Okay. You guys made me curious enough to watch a couple minutes of one of his videos. Holy hell! What a whack job! No way anybody really takes him serious. Dude looks like he is about to have an aneurysm at any moment. If he is the face of infowars, I see why they get heckled everywhere they go.

 

[anon_0astpxev9h4gk]

Okay. You guys made me curious enough to watch a couple minutes of one of his videos. Holy hell! What a whack job! No way anybody really takes him serious. Dude looks like he is about to have an aneurysm at any moment. If he is the face of infowars, I see why they get heckled everywhere they go.

Eric Andre went to the RNC and went up during Alex Jones "rally", it was ****ing glorious.

 

[TheDude1]

Okay. You guys made me curious enough to watch a couple minutes of one of his videos. Holy hell! What a whack job! No way anybody really takes him serious. Dude looks like he is about to have an aneurysm at any moment. If he is the face of infowars, I see why they get heckled everywhere they go.

Lots of people take him seriously, unfortunately, and he is accepted in a lot of places. Donald Trump was actually on his show and praised his reputation... they’ve actually spoken several times since Trump was elected.

 

[bkingUK]

There is no such thing as equal sides. Truth doesn’t have equal sides. There are not two sides of every coin. Sometimes there are thousands of sides of every coin.

Alex Jones is a shitty person. America is better off with him on the peripherals. And he violated the terms of service of every company who banned him. There’s nothing to debate.

To take this much further is to engage in the type of conspiracy theory that Jones is pushing. It’s a vast big Silicon Valley conspiracy!

 

[TheDude1]

There is no such thing as equal sides. Truth doesn’t have equal sides. There are not two sides of every coin. Sometimes there are thousands of sides of every coin.

Alex Jones is a shitty person. America is better off with him on the peripherals. And he violated the terms of service of every company who banned him. There’s nothing to debate.

To take this much further is to engage in the type of conspiracy theory that Jones is pushing. It’s a vast big Silicon Valley conspiracy!

I hate the idea that every side is valid and equal. They aren’t.

 

[SNU0821]

There is no such thing as equal sides. Truth doesn’t have equal sides. There are not two sides of every coin. Sometimes there are thousands of sides of every coin.

Alex Jones is a shitty person. America is better off with him on the peripherals. And he violated the terms of service of every company who banned him. There’s nothing to debate.

To take this much further is to engage in the type of conspiracy theory that Jones is pushing. It’s a vast big Silicon Valley conspiracy!

There are plenty of people on the left that violate those same terms of service constantly without being banned.

 

[Dattier]

There are plenty of people on the left that violate those same terms of service constantly without being banned.

Such as?

 

[ExitFlagger]

Point to where I said this was justified "because it's 'Alex Jones, the nut,'" or made any similar remarks. I didn't, but I'm curious to see what yarns you weave. It's justified because it's a privately owned company in a marketplace with a low barrier to entry (i.e. monopoly concerns are low). For similar reasons, your "hypocrisy" argument is out of place and irrelevant. (Maybe you meant to quote someone else, but you quoted my post and mischaracterized my position.)

Addressing the only issue on topic in your post - that "Facebook and Youtube ARE the internet for most people" - you're arguing about success in the marketplace of ideas, not access. (I'd also contest the point entirely, but I'll assume it's true for purposes of argument) You can use things like DuckDuckGo, Vimeo, Twitch, Dailymotion, Voat, Reddit, the various Chan sites, and similar. Or start your own. There's apparently outrage about privately owned companies doing what they want on their privately owned platforms, so start your own and watch all the money flow in (or not, it's a free market). The barrier to entry is relatively low, and the rewards are high. It was only 13 years ago when Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace (which was bigger than FB at the time), after all. Who's to say what will happen in another few years? That's what's cool about the free market - it's responsive to ideas.

Look, there should be sites where various viewpoints are tolerated; I'm no fan of a homogeneous internet without a wide variety of ideas represented. But there are such sites, and there are low enough barriers to entry where a growth of sites (with the opposite biases of the current leaders) is not just possible but probable. I'm just not a fan of the government forcing private companies to enforce some type of ill-defined (and it would have to be) neutrality. Not only would that be an enforcement nightmare, it would be antithetical to the free speech and association that forms a bedrock of this country.

Now, if I wanted to engage in mudslinging based on irrelevant strawmen (like the last 2 paragraphs of your post), I'd say that conservatives seemed to be perfectly okay with eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and completely dominating talk radio for 30 plus years; conservative talk radio was "the" talk radio "for most people" for literal decades. But that's a poor comparison, primarily because the public owns the airwaves, which provided the hook for government regulation (right or wrong) in the first place.

Some good points here, but why are you comparing those sites to Facebook and Youtube? Reddit sees some traffic (nothing like FB) and no one uses the others. The point wasn't that other platforms don't exist. The point is that none offer the exposure that those do (Twitter is at least in the same ballpark, but they'll probably follow suit and ban him any day now). Yes, everyone has "access" to all these sites. But be realistic about which sites are more likely to reach a lot of people, influence an election, etc. Zuckerberg claimed that FB is politically neutral. Their past indicates that's not true.

 

[Big_Blue79]

There are plenty of people on the left that violate those same terms of service constantly without being banned.

Oh, okay. What's your solution? Lawsuit by Jones alleging violation of YouTube's TOS? Government regulations forcing private companies to host content? What about porn? Can YouTube shut down porn channels? Why or why not? What entity in the federal government regulates this? Does it regulate all YouTube's content, or just that shown in the US? Created in the US? Hosted in the US? Distributed from the US?

Isn't the better solution found in the free market? There's such low barriers to entry compared to most industries. Compete.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Some good points here, but why are you comparing those sites to Facebook and Youtube? Reddit sees some traffic (nothing like FB) and no one uses the others. The point wasn't that other platforms don't exist. The point is that none offer the exposure that those do (Twitter is at least in the same ballpark, but they'll probably follow suit and ban him any day now). Yes, everyone has "access" to all these sites. But be realistic about which sites are more likely to reach a lot of people, influence an election, etc. Zuckerberg claimed that FB is politically neutral. Their past indicates that's not true.

So you want big daddy government to ensure that all points of view get equal exposure by forcing private companies to host content? That's so anthetical to the free market (ideas and money) that I'm not sure how anyone could be comfortable with it. If not, what is your solution? Not all ideas are entitled to equal exposure. That's like saying everyone should live in the same sized house.

How do you feel about the Fairness Doctrine?

Edit: Reddit surpassed FB this year in traffic, and users spend more time on Reddit than FB or any other high traffic websites. https://thenextweb.com/facebook/201...o-become-the-3rd-most-visited-site-in-the-us/

 

[ExitFlagger]

There is no such thing as equal sides. Truth doesn’t have equal sides. There are not two sides of every coin. Sometimes there are thousands of sides of every coin.

Alex Jones is a shitty person. America is better off with him on the peripherals. And he violated the terms of service of every company who banned him. There’s nothing to debate.

To take this much further is to engage in the type of conspiracy theory that Jones is pushing. It’s a vast big Silicon Valley conspiracy!

Alex Jones pisses me off too, but for different reasons than most of you. Since his name carries no credibility to the average person, his takes on certain issues cause the issue itself to lose credibility in the public eye. There are so many important issues that mainstream media won't even discuss (or if they do, it's only to ridicule the notion). For example, Fox News let Ron Paul rant about what a scam the Federal Reserve is, but even they treated him like the drunk, crazy grandfather that everybody tolerates with a smirk. The leftist media of course wouldn't even give him a platform. Yet he's 100% right about the Fed. And here we are, 105 years after the Federal Reserve Act passed, and there is no transparency, no accountability, and the average person knows nothing about its history or function and doesn't care.

 

[TheDude1]

Alex Jones pisses me off too, but for different reasons than most of you. Since his name carries no credibility to the average person, his takes on certain issues cause the issue itself to lose credibility in the public eye. There are so many important issues that mainstream media won't even discuss (or if they do, it's only to ridicule the notion). For example, Fox News let Ron Paul rant about what a scam the Federal Reserve is, but even they treated him like the drunk, crazy grandfather that everybody tolerates with a smirk. The leftist media of course wouldn't even give him a platform. Yet he's 100% right about the Fed. And here we are, 105 years after the Federal Reserve Act passed, and there is no transparency, no accountability, and the average person knows nothing about its history or function and doesn't care.

THATS why he pisses you off? Because he brings up legit points and issues, but because it is him people don’t listen to the issue?

 

[ExitFlagger]

Oh, okay. What's your solution? Lawsuit by Jones alleging violation of YouTube's TOS? Government regulations forcing private companies to host content? What about porn? Can YouTube shut down porn channels? Why or why not? What entity in the federal government regulates this? Does it regulate all YouTube's content, or just that shown in the US? Created in the US? Hosted in the US? Distributed from the US?

Isn't the better solution found in the free market? There's such low barriers to entry compared to most industries. Compete.

Porn is a clear violation of Youtube's terms. I haven't seen any specific examples of violations from Jones. There's probably a reason for that.

Right or wrong (and obviously most of you side with wrong), Jones's rage is focused on his perception of injustice, and the perceived perpetrators. Obviously his views differ from the average joe's on almost any topic, and the guy has a perspective that just isn't relateable for most. But that doesn't inherently make him scum. I believe he thinks he's doing right, and I think that's the most important takeaway regarding him. Some of his theories, and the way they're presented, are embarrassing. But is he a bad person? Nah, I don't think so. Obnoxious? Sure. Believe it or not, at one time he was pretty calm, rational and level-headed. His obsessions and paranoias have driven him over the edge. But hate speech? I mean, maybe against the likes of George Soros.

Anyway...that being said...let's assume for a second that this happened to you, and that the bans were based mostly or entirely on slander or misinterpretation. Your solution would be to say "It's all good...let's go build the next Facebook?" Right.

 

[TheDude1]

Porn is a clear violation of Youtube's terms. I haven't seen any specific examples of violations from Jones. There's probably a reason for that.

Right or wrong (and obviously most of you side with wrong), Jones's rage is focused on his perception of injustice, and the perceived perpetrators. Obviously his views differ from the average joe's on almost any topic, and the guy has a perspective that just isn't relateable for most. But that doesn't inherently make him scum. I believe he thinks he's doing right, and I think that's the most important takeaway regarding him. Some of his theories, and the way they're presented, are embarrassing. But is he a bad person? Nah, I don't think so. Obnoxious? Sure. Believe it or not, at one time he was pretty calm, rational and level-headed. His obsessions and paranoias have driven him over the edge. But hate speech? I mean, maybe against the likes of George Soros.

Anyway...that being said...let's assume for a second that this happened to you, and that the bans were based mostly or entirely on slander or misinterpretation. Your solution would be to say "It's all good...let's go build the next Facebook?" Right.

Dude, wtf do you think are the slander or misinterpretation? I assume by all your posts that you actually listen to him/read his website, so fill us in. 9/11 and OK city were done by the US government, Bill Gates is some eugenicist, the people in Charlottesville were Jewish spies, and Hillary Clinton chopped up and raped more people than can be counted? And you think this is... okay?

And who actually subscribes the the theory that if someone really believes they are doing right that is okay? Hitler thought he was doing right. A good person? How in the hell do you constantly push this “Sandy Hook was faked” bullshit, for years, to the point that people are harassing the parents of these kids, sending them constant death threats, to the point where some of them are moving five, six, seven times, if you are a “good person?” Hint: you don’t.

You are sticking up for this piece of shit, and not even in a “freedom of speech” sort of way, but in a “Oh no, he is actually a good guy and people are lying about him” sort of way. That’s absolutely pitiful. I am guessing you are a fan of his, although maybe you won’t straight up admit it. Wait, were you that mouth breather that bought into all of these ridiculous conspiracies before? Or was that someone else?

 

[SNU0821]

Dude, wtf do you think are the slander or misinterpretation? I assume by all your posts that you actually listen to him/read his website, so fill us in. 9/11 and OK city were done by the US government, Bill Gates is some eugenicist, the people in Charlottesville were Jewish spies, and Hillary Clinton chopped up and raped more people than can be counted? And you think this is... okay?

And who actually subscribes the the theory that if someone really believes they are doing right that is okay? Hitler thought he was doing right. A good person? How in the hell do you constantly push this “Sandy Hook was faked” bullshit, for years, to the point that people are harassing the parents of these kids, sending them constant death threats, to the point where some of them are moving five, six, seven times, if you are a “good person?” Hint: you don’t.

You are sticking up for this piece of shit, and not even in a “freedom of speech” sort of way, but in a “Oh no, he is actually a good guy and people are lying about him” sort of way. That’s absolutely pitiful. I am guessing you are a fan of his, although maybe you won’t straight up admit it. Wait, were you that mouth breather that bought into all of these ridiculous conspiracies before? Or was that someone else?

I’m really glad you’ve outed yourself as a piece of shit who’s incapable of talking with people who disagree with you. I’ve said it all along, but I think it’s pretty clear for all to see. So, thanks?

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Dude, wtf do you think are the slander or misinterpretation? I assume by all your posts that you actually listen to him/read his website, so fill us in. 9/11 and OK city were done by the US government, Bill Gates is some eugenicist, the people in Charlottesville were Jewish spies, and Hillary Clinton chopped up and raped more people than can be counted? And you think this is... okay?

And who actually subscribes the the theory that if someone really believes they are doing right that is okay? Hitler thought he was doing right. A good person? How in the hell do you constantly push this “Sandy Hook was faked” bullshit, for years, to the point that people are harassing the parents of these kids, sending them constant death threats, to the point where some of them are moving five, six, seven times, if you are a “good person?” Hint: you don’t.

You are sticking up for this piece of shit, and not even in a “freedom of speech” sort of way, but in a “Oh no, he is actually a good guy and people are lying about him” sort of way. That’s absolutely pitiful. I am guessing you are a fan of his, although maybe you won’t straight up admit it. Wait, were you that mouth breather that bought into all of these ridiculous conspiracies before? Or was that someone else?

Hopefully not in that order.

 

[SNU0821]

Oh, okay. What's your solution? Lawsuit by Jones alleging violation of YouTube's TOS? Government regulations forcing private companies to host content? What about porn? Can YouTube shut down porn channels? Why or why not? What entity in the federal government regulates this? Does it regulate all YouTube's content, or just that shown in the US? Created in the US? Hosted in the US? Distributed from the US?

Isn't the better solution found in the free market? There's such low barriers to entry compared to most industries. Compete.

Just be even handed with the ban hammer. Don’t just ban conservative voices. There shouldn’t be anyone here who thinks that’s ok. But then again, most liberals here seem to be ok with conservative speakers being silenced on college campuses....

 

[toonces11]

Dude, wtf do you think are the slander or misinterpretation? I assume by all your posts that you actually listen to him/read his website, so fill us in. 9/11 and OK city were done by the US government, Bill Gates is some eugenicist, the people in Charlottesville were Jewish spies, and Hillary Clinton chopped up and raped more people than can be counted? And you think this is... okay?

And who actually subscribes the the theory that if someone really believes they are doing right that is okay? Hitler thought he was doing right. A good person? How in the hell do you constantly push this “Sandy Hook was faked” bullshit, for years, to the point that people are harassing the parents of these kids, sending them constant death threats, to the point where some of them are moving five, six, seven times, if you are a “good person?” Hint: you don’t.

You are sticking up for this piece of shit, and not even in a “freedom of speech” sort of way, but in a “Oh no, he is actually a good guy and people are lying about him” sort of way. That’s absolutely pitiful. I am guessing you are a fan of his, although maybe you won’t straight up admit it. Wait, were you that mouth breather that bought into all of these ridiculous conspiracies before? Or was that someone else?

Im 100% not in this conversation bc in my limited experience i wouldn't touch this jones guy----but the bolded is the exact same argument used in every race case .....like ever. Ive been over it with you and data 1000's of times. And this is the first time you and i agree that it isn't okay and it doesn't matter if the person believes it if its not true. its irrational and they have no right to hold that over people that are sane.

 

[Big_Blue79]

^ my solution would be to use any of the other video hosting sites, and if I felt strongly that I didn't violate any terms I might sue for breach of contract. Or I might rely on my own already built website that has 3 million views per month. Or advertise my site through Reddit, the third busiest website.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Just be even handed with the ban hammer. Don’t just ban conservative voices. There shouldn’t be anyone here who thinks that’s ok. But then again, most liberals here seem to be ok with conservative speakers being silenced on college campuses....

That's not a solution, that's an... ideal, I guess. Who decides what is even handed? You? Me? A federal agency? Congress? What's the enforcement mechanism? Why not the free market in both instances?

Whether anyone thinks it's okay is different than whether you're for government intervention.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So you want big daddy government to ensure that all points of view get equal exposure by forcing private companies to host content? That's so anthetical to the free market (ideas and money) that I'm not sure how anyone could be comfortable with it. If not, what is your solution? Not all ideas are entitled to equal exposure. That's like saying everyone should live in the same sized house.

How do you feel about the Fairness Doctrine?

Edit: Reddit surpassed FB this year in traffic, and users spend more time on Reddit than FB or any other high traffic websites. https://thenextweb.com/facebook/201...o-become-the-3rd-most-visited-site-in-the-us/

Okay, it might have more traffic, but nowhere near as many users. Two-thirds of the world is on FB.

 

[I am stupid]

And who actually subscribes the the theory that if someone really believes they are doing right that is okay?

IIRC, several people on this board have said that if a person tells a lie, but they believe it themselves that it isn't a lie. It's their truth based on their personal experiences.

Maybe in Alex Jones personal experiences the Obama's really are lizard people. Who are we to judge. We haven't lived his life.

 

[bkingUK]

IIRC, several people on this board have said that if a person tells a lie, but they believe it themselves that it isn't a lie. It's their truth based on their personal experiences.

Maybe in Alex Jones personal experiences the Obama's really are lizard people. Who are we to judge. We haven't lived his life.

Alex Jones is free to lie. And YouTube is free to blacklist Alex Jones. And Nazi.com is free to only allow Nazis. There’s a place for everyone. Though, I doubt Nazi.com worries about advertisers.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

IIRC, several people on this board have said that if a person tells a lie, but they believe it themselves that it isn't a lie. It's their truth based on their personal experiences.

Maybe in Alex Jones personal experiences the Obama's really are lizard people. Who are we to judge. We haven't lived his life.

I don't know about "several people". I only remember one. Even though it was so obvious that Michael Bennett was a liar.

 

[TheDude1]

IIRC, several people on this board have said that if a person tells a lie, but they believe it themselves that it isn't a lie. It's their truth based on their personal experiences.

Maybe in Alex Jones personal experiences the Obama's really are lizard people. Who are we to judge. We haven't lived his life.

How did you ignore the most important part of what I said: “... that it is okay?”

 

[bkingUK]

https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/youtube-continues-its-cannabis-purge-and-nobody-knows-why

 

[bkingUK]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tu...youtube-purge-kids-videos-billions-views/amp/

 

[Dattier]

I’m really glad you’ve outed yourself as a piece of shit who’s incapable of talking with people who disagree with you. I’ve said it all along, but I think it’s pretty clear for all to see. So, thanks?

He's calling someone on the carpet for being an apologist for Jones, but you have a problem with him?

 

[Dattier]

I don't know about "several people". I only remember one. Even though it was so obvious that Michael Bennett was a liar.

It was me, and I argued the possibility.