Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

[TheBlondBomber]

This is kinda were you go wrong with the idea that this is a first amendment issue imo. We have to assume that this is a government attack against Jones.

There is more than enough evidence to show that Jones is a douchebag. He has written his own ticket to this path. I'm definitely no lawyer, I'm just a simple minded electrician. The simplest explanation is that these social outlets have had enough of this crazy asshole. He isn't a journalist, he is a fraud and has had to admit that in court repeatedly.

Sure if you are one of his followers, the whole deep state is working to silence him will make sense, because they are already crazy for not seeing through his bullshit.

So, you think this is a deep state operation against Alex Jones? I won't deny that our government has done shady crao in the past, and it will do shady crao in the future. There just isn't the need to do it with this fake news journalist.

No that’s not the case though. According to Brentwood, Wilmington and the 3rd Circuit, the government and the tech companies doesn’t have to be out to get Jones. They just have to be working together in a symbiotic relationship in one way or another for there to be state action.

However to be fair, Lugar says there must be a relationship between the entwinement and the cause of action. That could only be shown pretty much through affirmative encouragement and the data sharing and subsidies wouldn’t matter.

 

[LMP]

No that’s not the case though. According to Brentwood, Wilmington and the 3rd Circuit, the government and the tech companies doesn’t have to be out to get Jones. They just have to be working together in a symbiotic relationship in one way or another for there to be state action.

The case would have to be around the government actually taking action to violate his first amendment. They have government contracts sure. Just like in the case of them gathering information, that they were sharing with the government. That is why they were able to say that it was a violation. If the government had no influence in the banning of Alex Jones, the case would fail right away.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

The case would have to be around the government actually taking action to violate his first amendment. They have government contracts sure. Just like in the case of them gathering information, that they were sharing with the government. That is why they were able to say that it was a violation. If the government had no influence in the banning of Alex Jones, the case would fail right away.

If there is state action via the entwinement, then it’s a fairly open and shut 1A case. The government’s actions, acting through FB, YT, Spotify and Apple, do not meet the strict scrutiny standards set forth by the SCOTUS.

The only hurdle (and a big hurdle) would be proving state action. If the court says there is state action, then the companies would be acting as the government and it would be an obvious violation.

 

[LMP]

If there is state action via the entwinement, then it’s a fairly open and shut 1A case. The government’s actions, acting through FB, YT, Spotify and Apple, do not meet the strict scrutiny standards set forth by the SCOTUS.

The only hurdle (and a big hurdle) would be proving state action. If the court says there is state action, then the companies would be acting as the government and it would be an obvious violation.

Like I said before, at least from my understanding(take that how you want) the reason the information gathering case was entwinement was because they were sharing information with the government. So in order for this to be the same, it would be if they were targeting people, specifically Alex Jones, under government request. That would be super hard to prove. With the current information I see absolutely no way for that to happen.

 

[Gangsters_Paradise]

They want that shill Alex Jones to appear like the real counter culture cult of personality so they are temporarily banning him to increase his internet street cred. This is clearly another staged bullshit act to reel in more fools and feed them more disinformation.

 

[Ruprecht]

It's not taking away his "freedom of speech".
Jones violated their terms and conditions repeatedly, and in fact youtube went out of their way not to ban him with the timing and aggregation of his warnings.
Not surprising given the popularity of his show and the inevitable way he will feed off of this.
With other platforms banning him for the same content, and the high profile nature of the complaints against him, it looks like they decided to actually enforce their T&C/user guidelines.
As for the specific policy regarding the victim blaming/harassment of the victims of tragedies, we have a similar policy here which will also be enforced.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Like I said before, at least from my understanding(take that how you want) the reason the information gathering case was entwinement was because they were sharing information with the government. So in order for this to be the same, it would be if they were targeting people, specifically Alex Jones, under government request. That would be super hard to prove. With the current information I see absolutely no way for that to happen.

The court in Lugar would agree with you (but Jones might have an affirmative encourage argument based on government officials calling on companies to target fake news). But Souter in Brentwood did not say that the cause of action has to be related to the entwinement.

It’s definitely not an absolute winning theory, but there is an argument for state action. Glad we got past it all and had a productive discussion.

 

[LMP]

The court in Lugar would agree with you (but Jones might have an affirmative encourage argument based on government officials calling on companies to target fake news). But Souter in Brentwood did not say that the cause of action has to be related to the entwinement.

It’s definitely not an absolute winning theory, but there is an argument for state action. Glad we got past it all and had a productive discussion.

Sorry about the rough start to it. Get so use to dealing with people trolling that it's sort of my automatic default.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Sorry about the rough start to it. Get so use to dealing with people trolling that it's sort of my automatic default.

I’m to blame as well. I sounded douchy at times. But cheers to agreeing to disagree.

 

[Ruprecht]

To be even more cynical about it, youtube only decided to start enforcing their T&C/Guidelines after advertisers said they no longer wanted their adverts on Jones' videos.
Which meant that from a business standpoint his channel had become a liability despite it's popularity.
Remember, if you are watching youtube videos you are the product, not the consumer.

 

[goldennirvana]

Lol @ butthurt conservatives here being upset with corporations doing what they want. You can't claim to be conservative while subtly hinting that companies shouldn't be allowed to do this

You have no idea what conservatism is. lol

 

[GetTheseHands]

Democrat Senator calling for more censorship

 

[Madmick]

To be even more cynical about it, youtube only decided to start enforcing their T&C/Guidelines after advertisers said they no longer wanted their adverts on Jones' videos.
Which meant that from a business standpoint his channel had become a liability despite it's popularity.
Remember, if you are watching youtube videos you are the product, not the consumer.

This logic extends to all other media with a free-to-view advertiser model: television, radio/podcasts, etc. Which means that by this logic the professional sports leagues are by-and-large not products as their primary revenue streams are TV advertising dollars and network contracts whose value is derived from the attraction power to advertisers who are once again the consumers, here.

It isn't at all difficult to prevent the general mill of ads from being broadcast on that channel, and subtracting its daily average views from the overall platform that you pitch to advertisers. I don't for one second believe they don't already do this because advertisers want better targeting of their products, and you wouldn't want condom or birth control pill commercials popping up on the Peppa Pig channels.

This is a pathetic attempt at a justification based on revenue.

 

[goldennirvana]

Democrat Senator calling for more censorship

All in the name of democracy. I wonder what he means by that...

 

[Ruprecht]

This logic extends to all other media with a free-to-view advertiser model: television, radio/podcasts, etc. Which means that by this logic the professional sports leagues are by-and-large not products as their primary revenue streams are TV advertising dollars and network contracts whose value is derived from the attraction power to advertisers who are once again the consumers, here.

It isn't at all difficult to prevent the general mill of ads from being broadcast on that channel, and subtracting its daily average views from the overall platform that you pitch to advertisers. I don't for one second believe they don't already do this because advertisers want better targeting of their products, and you wouldn't want condom or birth control pill commercials popping up on the Peppa Pig channels.

This is a pathetic attempt at a justification based on revenue.

Yes, with all commercial media reliant on advertising, the audience is the product.
You overestimate how accurate Youtube's algorithms are. Youtube's entire crackdown on content and monetisation came as a direct result of advertiser complaints and withdrawals. They went from being a free for all (effectively. They had guidelines, they were rarely enforced outside copyright claims) to having guidelines increasingly like what you'd see for commercial television and radio.
They've even hinted at possibly introducing categorisation of content for selected advertising (similar to how TV advertising has been structured around timeslots and content ratings) . That will be difficult to automate.
Even now they struggle to enforce their content guidelines, as we've seen with their recent crackdown on channels aimed at kids. The advertisers that complained about the adverts being shown over infowars material (or outright stopped advertising with youtube) had already enabled the "sensitive topics" filter which should have kept them from Jones' channel.
Alex Jones has drawn complaints for a long time, and has violated their stated guidelines for ages. All of a sudden they decide to ban him not long after advertisers pull out over being displayed on his videos and after his case with the Sandy Hook parents gets a lot of media attention. Seems pretty obvious what prompted their change of policy.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Alex Jones still has his rights.

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have the right to refuse service for any reason.

I think at this point facebook, youtube etc are more than just a company they basically are the internet and they are so big they either crush or buy out any competitors.
To that end I think we should be looking very closely at what they are doing and who they allow a voice. These companies could be very dangerous if they are allowed to control public opinion.

 

[TheGreatA]

Democrat Senator calling for more censorship

If the survival of American democracy stood on such flimsy foundations, I imagine that it would've collapsed by now. I mean, Civil War, WW2, the Cold War, I think those were bigger threats than InfoWars.

I reckon there's much more of a threat posed against democracy, by global corporations potentially controlling speech and political narratives, than an Alex Jones ranting on the internet.

The Alex Jones's have always existed, and always will.

 

[woodguyatl]

What do you want from me? Your implication is that private property isn't possible in socialism. That's only a tenet in certain radical forms of socialism, and even that is parsed between private and personal property by many socialists. He's chiding you for not understanding one of the most basic terms of grammar in the debate.

He's talking about the difference between the government garnishing the wages of its citizens (taxes), and using that to subsidize corn/soy farmers, who still build their own farms, pay their own laborers, and sell their own crop, for example, versus the government garnishing the wages of its citizens (taxes), which it uses to build the farms, employ the farmers, and then sell all the corn/soy itself.

Meanwhile, you're talking about selling a bike to your friend. Do you understand how you're out of your element, Donny?

Well said.

 

[woodguyatl]

You are bringing up another topic entirely. The concern in this thread is about certain powerful and influential companies silencing people who do not agree with their leftist ideology. It is not entirely unreasonable to argue that there is a leftist slant that influences the decision making of YouTube, Apple and Facebook when you consider it is almost always right-leaning content being silenced and left-leaning content being promoted. You just have look at YouTube's featured videos (which get heavily down-voted) and it is painfully obvious the agenda they are trying to push.

As an aside, why do you think it is that only liberals start billion dollar social media and technology companies?

 

[woodguyatl]

If there’s state action through the symbiotic relationship, the Jones would be entitled to First Amendment protections. And since the internet is a traditional public forum, and government would have the burden of meeting strict scrutiny. Meaning that the government would have to show that the regulation is subject matter and viewpoint neutral and viewpoint neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

Because the regulation would not be viewpoint or subject matter neutral (I.e., allowing Antifa and ISIS to have pages but not Jones), the terms and conditions would not meet strict scrutiny.

Try again.

Unless you want to say that Jones’s speech would be unprotected speech even with state action. Then I’d ask you which category of unprotected speech does Jones’s speech fall under?

The internet and Facebook are not the same thing. Alex Jones has free reign to use that internet as he wishes, but does not have the right to use Facebook. Requiring Facebook to allow content would be like the government forcing the Wall Street Journal to publish a specific opinion piece. It would be compelled speech which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.