Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

Ruprecht said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's like he hasn't seen a single youtuber complain about their videos getting demonetized..
 
Bamboozled said:
If you can show me how InfoWars being on these platforms impacts their bottom line I'd gladly agree with you.
Click to expand...
Is it really hard to fathom blue-chip corporations not wanting to be associated with a raving lunatic who rants about vampiric, deepstate, child-molesting goblin globalists? I assume even someone as obtuse as you can see why that would be bad for their brand.
 
Ruprecht said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I don't overestimate anything, and none of this is news to me. YouTube has had serious problems with showing ads on the wrong channels, but the bottom line is that Alex Jones generates a lot of views, views is what generates revenue, and he hasn't violated any tangible laws. This is a single source, and as far as I read, it had a dozen distribution channels on YouTube-- principally four. These are known entities. You don't have to worry about algorithms to stymie Duetsche Bank ads from being spread across a thousand obscure child predator channels which you haven't personally inspected because they pop up all the time. Condense them into one channel so that advertisers can filter them more easily; pull down duplicate channels under your same copyright laws. If they can't moderate a source this familiar and singular, how in the hell can their filters be trusted to keep ads off a thousand less prominent CT channels pitching "news" even more offensive and spurious?

Perform all the acrobatics you like, but anyone keeping their eye on the ball isn't going to be persuaded by an argument this sequacious. This isn't a revenue-based decision, and anybody who buys the notion it is...is quite gullible.

 
This entire thread:

Guy: why is Alex Jones being banned?!?!

Other guy: because of this

Guy: but really why is he being banned?!?!
 
Frank23 said:
They might go after Sherdog forums.

<{hfved}>
Click to expand...

The people supporting censorship don't understand that their speech is next, as there's no limit to what they'll censor. Those that are in control don't want the public to be conversing deeply about subjects period, as it makes it harder for them to maintain power when people broaden their thinking; they only want them to consume the narrative they push. It's why you'll see many of the comment sections on MSM sites have been removed.
 
Madmick said:
No, I don't overestimate anything, and none of this is news to me. YouTube has had serious problems with showing ads on the wrong channels, but the bottom line is that Alex Jones generates a lot of views, views is what generates revenue, and he hasn't violated any tangible laws. This is a single source, and as far as I read, it had a dozen distribution channels on YouTube-- principally four. These are known entities. You don't have to worry about algorithms to stymie Duetsche Bank ads from being spread across a thousand obscure child predator channels which you haven't personally inspected because they pop up all the time. Condense them into one channel so that advertisers can filter them more easily; pull down duplicate channels under your same copyright laws. If they can't moderate a source this familiar and singular, how in the hell can their filters be trusted to keep ads off a thousand less prominent CT channels pitching "news" even more offensive and spurious?

Perform all the acrobatics you like, but anyone keeping their eye on the ball isn't going to be persuaded by an argument this sequacious. This isn't a revenue-based decision, and anybody who buys the notion it is...is quite gullible.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Both Facebook and Youtube explicitly reversed their stated positions from the beginning of the year.
Other than the media attention the Alex Jones case has received and the Advertiser backlash, what else has changed?
Why now, when previously Youtube had given AJ only one strike for an accumulation of 4 T&C video removals over a 4 month period rolled into one (and they waited until his previous warnings had expired, presumably in order not to ban him)? He's been in violation of their T&C ever since they published them.
If it's not the Advertiser backlash and general public outcry, then why have the two companies which faced advertiser backlash (Facebook and Youtube) acted, but not Twitter?





https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17...cebook-interview-full-transcript-kara-swisher
 
OeuvrePressure said:
The alternative was eating the bad PR sandwich Jones served up.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I can't blame them for doing it. It was the best move for them.

I just think those who are celebrating Jones' supposed demise are underestimating the bump he's going to get from this publicity.
 
sniper said:
Steve is about to do a show on this in 15 minutes. Steve never let's me down. Ill post a link when hes live. I predict this will be a pretty popular show.

But if steve ends up deplatformed for talking about this, I will be on the m----- Jones bandwagon
Click to expand...
Why would he? I've never seen him intentionally make false claims or try to rile people up to violence, or make threats against public officials. Unlike your super good buddy bud Alexei.
 
JSnake said:
The people supporting censorship don't understand that their speech is next, as there's no limit to what they'll censor. Those that are in control don't want the public to be conversing deeply about subjects period, as it makes it harder for them to maintain power when people broaden their thinking; they only want them to consume the narrative they push. It's why you'll see many of the comment sections on MSM sites have been removed.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity what was your take on President Trump saying that Jamele Hill (ESPN Sportscenter Host) should have been fired for calling him a "white supremacist" on twitter? and your take on Trump saying that NFL Players MUST stand for the National Anthem, then calling NFL Owners and saying "You can't win on anthem protests....this is a winning issue for me"
 
GetTheseHands said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hate speech is a legal tem though in many of the countries that they do business in.
 
This will happen until internet is rightfully deemed a utility. This is the equivalent of banning people from using a telephone
 
ineverpost said:
This will happen until internet is rightfully deemed a utility. This is the equivalent of banning people from using a telephone
Click to expand...
{<huh}

Did they take Alex's router or something? I agree that YouTube should not be able to take Alex's router.
 
This thread was more entertaining than anything Alex has ever done.
 
Ruprecht said:
Hardly. Both Facebook and Youtube explicitly reversed their stated positions from the beginning of the year.

Other than the media attention the Alex Jones case has received and the Advertiser backlash, what else has changed?

Why now, when previously Youtube had given AJ only one strike for an accumulation of 4 T&C video removals over a 4 month period rolled into one (and they waited until his previous warnings has expired)? He's been in violation of their T&C ever since they published them.

If it's not the Advertiser backlash and general public outcry, then why have the two companies which faced advertiser backlash (Facebook and Youtube) acted, but not Twitter?



https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17...cebook-interview-full-transcript-kara-swisher
Click to expand...

LOL, nice try sneaking that in. That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with advertising dollars. It's about catering to those who despise Alex, want him silenced, and not those who actually view his channel.

What changed? Everything. Did you miss the Cambridge Analytica debacle? They're keen to throw Alex under the bus to convince the mindless hordes they are a "good" company:
YouTube said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Facebook said:
"Upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence ... and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies," said Facebook.
Click to expand...
Alex said all of these things about Sandy Hook over four years ago. Maybe explain that timeline while you're at it.

What happened since the beginning of this year? What happened since last month? Facebook was still defending Alex at the time. This is a cave to a pitchfork mob, not a downturn in profits.

Twitter didn't ban him because they are hurting from losing 70 million bot accounts in their attempt to clean their platform up. One costly project at a time. They also suffer an even more checkered history with their selective censorship. Why didn't you mention Apple, Spotify, and Pinterest? Did advertisers not threaten them, too? Kendrick Lamar just protested artist censorship on Spotify two months ago over R. Kelly:
Kendrick Label Head Confirms He Threatened to Pull Music From Spotify

Where is the revenue downturn, Rup? Show me the downturn in usage/views during the period Alex was violating (*gasp!*) the T&C four times, or demonstrate to me they are actually losing funding over these advertiser threats. This is so hollow. Not a single one of those advertisers has the balls to leave YouTube. That would be like threatening to leave ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox because they gave Alex a time slot on some cable corollary. Hell, none of those whiners in the pitchfork mob will stop watching YouTube if they keep Alex up (and they haven't).I expect this will prove to be as material as the forecasts for revenue/attendance downturn with the LA Clippers who didn't oust Donald Sterling before the playoffs that season.

YouTube doesn't owe Alex a platform, but you're insulting everyone's intelligence with an argument built on presumption, and not proof. Show me the money. These revenue & viewership downturns were quite real with Kaepernick. They were easy to produce, and the cause was rather easy to isolate.

YouTube Banned Me, but Not the Hate Imams
They've already shown their hand time and again with headline cycles like the above. At the heart of this, at its deepest core, liberals are desperate to assign blame for why Donald Trump became the President of the United States. They want to blame Russia, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, the "Alt-Right"/racism, Breitbart, FOX News, Christianity, toxic masculinity, and anything else they perceive to stand in their way of their fantasy of a progressive utopia. They'd ban Ben Shapiro if they could-- we saw that. Alex is just an easy target to serve up as a nibble, and set the precedent. "Hate speech".

The engineers of this don't want liberals looking in the mirror because that would entail some hard conclusions about their platform, and its hypocrisies, when these engineers know damn well this platform serves their sociopolitical ambitions splendidly in the long term...they just have to sustain it a bit longer. Just another decade or two.
 
IGotAHugePeckah said:
Oh yeah, I can't blame them for doing it. It was the best move for them.

I just think those who are celebrating Jones' supposed demise are underestimating the bump he's going to get from this publicity.
Click to expand...

I've been seeing this reasoning a few times now, and I gotta say, I'll believe it when I see it. The right and #classicalliberals have won a lot since November 2016, and thus they don't really recognize losing. Like, if something looks bad, it's only temporary until the real thing happens. But they've had their surge. This might just be the wave breaking on the shore. Everyone knows who Alex Jones is, and have pretty much made up their mind about him. I don't really expect this to sway a whole lot of people who weren't already swayed.
 
"facebook bans infowars, keeps antifa, louis farrakhan"

I just read pinterest also banned him .. what's going on here ?
 
2DUM2TAP said:
Hate speech is a legal tem though in many of the countries that they do business in.
Click to expand...


I'm sure in countries that are not as 'free' as America like China or Germany, they can get away with colluding with government to silence people, not here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,306
Messages
58,275,337
Members
175,990
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top