Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

[tonni]

I keep telling you why but you keep ignoring my posts.

Alex Jones went on a rant calling for the death of Robert Mueller.

But why 6 years after?

 

[Leagon]

One persons bad idea is another's utopia...

True. And that's the pitfall of censorship. Who defines "bad idea"?

But I think we're all seeing the danger of freedom of ideas. A woman can ruin a man's life with one tweet. A talk show host can get people killed with one sentence. Anyone with a large enough platform can do untold, irreparable damage, and it is far easier to destroy than to create. That was never the intended outcome of freedom of speech.

 

[GetTheseHands]

I keep telling you why but you keep ignoring my posts.

Alex Jones went on a rant calling for the death of Robert Mueller.

You JUST mentioned it and I JUST answered

 

[snakedafunky]

1. Your entire argument is projection not based on what actual reason given for Jones being removed but your personal feelings about him
2. Again, if this was about Sandy Hook, why wait 6 years after?

Ok but that alone should get him removed IMO.
Do you know anything about that Sandy Hook harassment?
It is ongoing basically people harassing the parents because they believe it was an inside job and the kids aren't real.
To an extent that the parents have to move several times.
I think Jones is also getting sued over that at the moment.

 

[JeffDredd]

Jones has been doing his tomfoolery for ages and suddenly all these platforms decide at the same time to ban him.

Whatever you think about Jones, the way this was done raises some eyebrows.

Definitely this. You might not agree with him but he should be allowed to say what he likes as long as he isn't calling for violence.

Edit:

Which is what I just read he was doing.

 

[GetTheseHands]

True. And that's the pitfall of censorship. Who defines "bad idea"?

But I think we're all seeing the danger of freedom of ideas. A woman can ruin a man's life with one tweet. A talk show host can get people killed with one sentence. Anyone with a large enough platform can do untold, irreparable damage, and it is far easier to destroy than to create. That was never the intended outcome of freedom of speech.

That is EXACTLY the intended outcome of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech wasn't meant to protect speech you agree with, otherwise it would be needed.

 

[Grenz]

They officially citied 'hate speech'. Hate speech is not a legal term and it is vaguely explained by these companies to justify banning people they don't agree with. Also who did Alex Jones harass and what qualifies as 'harassment'? If I make a video called "Beyonce sucks" I'm I harassing Beyonce?

No of course not, you're just expressing an opinion based on a subjective emotion. But if you made a video claiming Beyonce sucks because she keeps little orphans in her mansions as sex slaves, then that's (obviously) slander and she's going to sue the shit out of you and you're going to lose, rightfully so.

Same here, you can't just go around making videos containing outrageous claims, not presenting the evidence required to substantiate those claims, and then try and hide behind Free Speech. Free Speech exists to protect the exchange of ideas, not to protect blatant lies with intent, or at least possibility to cause harm.

 

[lilelvis]

True. And that's the pitfall of censorship. Who defines "bad idea"?

But I think we're all seeing the danger of freedom of ideas. A woman can ruin a man's life with one tweet. A talk show host can get people killed with one sentence. Anyone with a large enough platform can do untold, irreparable damage, and it is far easier to destroy than to create. That was never the intended outcome of freedom of speech.

Seems like a ton of potential for the "cure" to be worse than the disease.. Slippery slope and all that...

 

[snakedafunky]

You sound like the church ladies who wanted to ban GTA because it could lead to people committing crimes.

Very slippery slope to start punishing people for the bad acts of people who consume their works.

I’m sure Al Gore still has a YouTube channel and Facebook page despite Ted Kaczynski being influence by his books.

I don't say he should be punished for it legally.
But if it were my company I certainly wouldn't let him broadcast his message on it.

If Al Core's message causes the same issue as Jones he should be banned as well.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Ok but that alone should get him removed IMO.
Do you know anything about that Sandy Hook harassment?
It is ongoing basically people harassing the parents because they believe it was an inside job and the kids aren't real.
To an extent that the parents have to move several times.
I think Jones is also getting sued over that at the moment.

I haven't any evidence of this but like I said, that happened 6 years ago so why ban him today?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Apple, Facebook, Spotify, YouTube (Google) all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other, all companies citing that Infowars engages in 'hate speech'.

Each social media platform said Monday that it had removed content from Jones or InfoWars because it had violated their policies. The companies' moves shut down key distribution channels that had given the controversial media figure easy access to millions of internet users.

The most dramatic action came last, from YouTube, which is owned by Google (GOOGL). It removed many top channels associated with InfoWars, including The Alex Jones Channel, which had 2.4 million subscribers and videos that were viewed over 1.5 billion times.

"When users violate ... policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts," said a spokesperson for YouTube.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/facebook-infowars-alex-jones/index.html


So now that Infowars has been taken down, how much longer until Fox News and Breitbart is deemed by big tech to not be allowed to exist?

Good. Fuck Alex Jones, purveyor of bullshit.
This isn't about freedom of speech, and the attempt to frame it as such is transparent.

 

[HomerThompson]

No of course not, you're just expressing an opinion based on a subjective emotion. But if you made a video claiming Beyonce sucks because she keeps little orphans in her mansions as sex slaves, then that's (obviously) slander and she's going to sue the shit out of you and you're going to lose, rightfully so.

Same here, you can't just go around making videos containing outrageous claims, not presenting the evidence required to substantiate those claims, and then try and hide behind Free Speech. Free Speech exists to protect the exchange of ideas, not to protect blatant lies with intent, or at least possibility to cause harm.

Thank you.

 

[snakedafunky]

I haven't any evidence of this but like I said, that happened 6 years ago so why ban him today?

Mate, what do you not understand about ongoing?
It is happening right now.

 

[Rational Poster]

Was that cited or what you assumed?

Hate speech was cited and being that his account suspension directly correlates with his death threat rant I'm confident in my assumption.

 

[Rational Poster]

That is EXACTLY the intended outcome of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech wasn't meant to protect speech you agree with, otherwise it would be needed.

This isn't true.

The US historically had limits on hate speech and incitement, but we changed those laws in the 60s I believe.

 

[HomerThompson]

Ya’ll are going to be sorry when everythingbhe says turns out to be true.

 

[Leagon]

That is EXACTLY the intended outcome of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech wasn't meant to protect speech you agree with, otherwise it would be needed.

Agreed. But that's not what I was saying.

Freedom of speech was never intended that one person's falsehood could destroy lives. That was always viewed as an acceptable risk. However, that risk is mitigated by the size of the population and the speed of information. If there are only 50 people in my town, it's hard to lie to me about them because I probably know them pretty well. I can just ask. Similarly, if it takes a week to send a letter from one side of town to the other, it would take an awful lot of resources to perpetrate a mass lie.

But when you have 400 million people and a thought can be sent out to 100 million people in less than a second, shit becomes pretty risky. It has nothing to do with thoughts anyone agrees or disagrees with.

 

[GetTheseHands]

No of course not, you're just expressing an opinion based on a subjective emotion. But if you made a video claiming Beyonce sucks because she keeps little orphans in her mansions as sex slaves, then that's (obviously) slander and she's going to sue the shit out of you and you're going to lose, rightfully so.

Ok...is that grounds for being censored?

Same here, you can't just go around making videos containing outrageous claims, not presenting the evidence required to substantiate those claims, and then try and hide behind Free Speech. Free Speech exists to protect the exchange of ideas, not to protect blatant lies with intent, or at least possibility to cause harm.

Is lying against the law (sans under oath)? Because by your argument, anyone who makes a claim that doesn't present evidence that you agree deserves to be banned. And who is the deciding the truth and what is their political affiliation?

 

[panamaican]

Jones has been doing his tomfoolery for ages and suddenly all these platforms decide at the same time to ban him.

Whatever you think about Jones, the way this was done raises some eyebrows.

Not really. I'm sure these companies are cross comparing and discussing things before deciding on an action of this scale.

 

[Frank23]