Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

Madmick said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They had ample reasons to ban Alex Jones for breaking their T&C if they wanted. They could have treated the four videos they deleted as separate strikes and banned him last year. They could have not waited for the previous two strikes to expire, given him one more for the first video and *poof*.
The social media campaign against Alex Jones has been ongoing for ages. The public backlash against Infowars has been the same since the "Fake News" campaign started post Trump's election. You can guarantee that most of his rants get reported. The platforms have been widely seen as hypocritical in the Tech journals for not banning Infowars despite their stance on fake news and their shift in terms and conditions.
It was in direct response to those questions about Infowars that Facebook gave the responses I posted about allowing opinions (both through their twitter feed and Zuckerberg himself in interview).
Why the explicit change? Why not twitter, who have also faced exactly the same accusations and performed similar prior bans, but not faced the same advertiser backlash? You've failed to account for their explicit shift in policy if this was a product of the "liberal agenda", and why twitter hasn't followed suit. If it's just to assuage the social media mobs, why now?
Yes, Cambridge Analytica was what caused Facebook to receive their major advertiser backlash.
Of course there's no financial statement to show how much Youtube or Facebook lost. However one advertiser (UNHCR) dropped youtube altogether over it and the other major adverstisers explicitly demanded that youtube ensure none of their adverts played on Infowars.
Those same advertiser demands have driven every major policy change youtube has made recently, and if advertisers don't want to be shown on his channel then his views are worthless to youtube.
Jones himself expected them to axe his channel after his prior warnings and then the advertiser backlash.
 
Last edited:
I was watching business news this morning and they were debating this. Basically Apple started it and then the rest of the companies felt they had cover to do it too. They didn't have the balls to do it till Apple did. Apple by leadership.
 
GetTheseHands said:
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
Click to expand...

Sorry, who is colluding with government to silence infowars while infowars has press credentials?
 
Ruprecht said:
Nonsense. They had ample reasons to ban Alex Jones for breaking their T&C if they wanted. They could have treated the four videos they deleted as separate strikes and banned him last year. They could have not waited for the previous two strike to expire, given him one more for the first video and *poof*.

The social media campaign against Alex Jones has been ongoing for ages. The public backlash against Infowars has been the same since the "Fake News" campaign started post Trump's election. You can guarantee that most of his rants get reported. The platforms have been widely seen as hypocritical in the Tech journals for not banning Infowars despite their stance on fake news and their shift in terms and conditions.

It was in direct response to those questions about Infowars that Facebook gave the responses I posted about allowing opinions (both through their twitter feed and Zuckerberg himself in interview).

Why the explicit change? Why not twitter, who have also faced exactly the same accusations and performed similar prior bans, but not faced the same advertiser backlash? You've failed to account for their explicit shift in policy if this was a product of the "liberal agenda", and why twitter hasn't followed suit. If it's just to assuage the social media mobs, why now?

Yes, Cambridge Analytica was what caused Facebook to receive their major advertiser backlash.

Of course there's no financial statement to show how much Youtube or Facebook lost. However one advertiser (UNHCR) dropped youtube altogether over it and the other major adverstisers explicitly demanded that youtube ensure none of their adverts played on Infowars.

Those same advertiser demands have driven every major policy change youtube has made recently, and if advertisers don't want to be shown on his channel then his views are worthless to youtube.
Jones himself expected them to axe his channel after his prior warnings and then the advertiser backlash.
Click to expand...
Nobody is contradicting they had "ample reason" to ground him on precedent and policy. This debate is about why they really did it. You have already transformed your argument. Notice that? You have pivoted from rooting the justification in revenue to rooting your justification in past infringements of policy carrying warnings, and in tech blogospheres editorials about inconsistency regarding policy. My challenge was of this notion it is about advertising revenue. Bullshit.

The public exposure to his Sandy Hook lawsuit and the media blitz surrounding it, who are angry he wasn't censored alongside the rest of the "fake news", is what re-opened this old wound, and has allowed the hostile MSM to find a story that resonates to lend pressure to this campaign:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html

CNN were the ones who informed all those advertisers their commercials were being advertised on Alex Jones' channels. I'm sure these advertisers already knew, but they didn't care. CNN deprived them of plausible deniability. CNN carries the threat of the mob. CNN has organized and perpetrated this:
Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel
Many of the brands -- including Nike, Moen, Expedia, Acer, ClassPass, Honey, Alibaba and OneFamily -- have suspended ads on InfoWars' channels after being contacted by CNN for comment.
Click to expand...

You have failed to produce anything beyond a "threat" from a major advertiser that I have seen. They've only "demanded" to be taken off his channel, not off YouTube, and only because CNN is hounding them. So brave. Much meaning.

How much money was lost from the U.N. Human Rights Commission? A hundred grand? Where is the sustained downturn in advertising revenue? Where is the evidence Alex has been hurting the YouTube user base or viewership? He pulls in 2.4m subscribers and over half a million daily views on his single most popular YouTube channel alone (1.6bn total views on this single channel). Calculate the average ad revenue generated using the YouTube utilities for predicting profitability.

This has nothing to do with revenue. Stop being obsequious to imaginary consequences and weak logical presumptions in the absence of evidence or fact. This is the avenue of tinfoilers.
 
JonesBones said:
I was watching business news this morning and they were debating this. Basically Apple started it and then the rest of the companies felt they had cover to do it too. They didn't have the balls to do it till Apple did. Apple by leadership.
Click to expand...

Apple had nothing to lose though. They have never presented themselves as an open platform. Just the opposite. Only Twitter, Youtube and Facebook have tried to present themselves as open platforms only subject to basic restrictions on nudity, criminal behaviour etc Although they started clamping down on that last year with their terms and conditions.
 
Madmick said:
Nobody is contradicting they had "ample reason" to ground him on precedent and policy. This debate is about why they really did it. You have already transformed your argument. Notice that? You have pivoted from rooting the justification in revenue to rooting your justification in past infringements of policy carrying warnings, and in tech blogospheres editorials about inconsistency regarding policy. My challenge was of this notion it is about advertising revenue. Bullshit.

The public exposure to his Sandy Hook lawsuit and the media blitz surrounding it, who are angry he wasn't censored alongside the rest of the "fake news", is what re-opened this old wound, and has allowed the hostile MSM to find a story that resonates to lend pressure to this campaign:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html

CNN were the ones who informed all those advertisers their commercials were being advertised on Alex Jones' channels. I'm sure these advertisers already knew, but they didn't care. CNN deprived them of plausible deniability. CNN carries the threat of the mob. CNN has organized and perpetrated this:
Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel


You have failed to produce anything beyond a "threat" from a major advertiser that I have seen. They've only "demanded" to be taken off his channel, not off YouTube, and only because CNN is hounding them. So brave. Much meaning.

How much money was lost from the U.N. Human Rights Commission? A hundred grand? Where is the sustained downturn in advertising revenue? Where is the evidence Alex has been hurting the YouTube user base or viewership? He pulls in 2.4m subscribers and over half a million daily views on his single most popular YouTube channel alone (1.6bn total views on this single channel). Calculate the average ad revenue generated using the YouTube utilities for predicting profitability.

This has nothing to do with revenue. Stop being obsequious to imaginary consequences and weak logical presumptions in the absence of evidence or fact. This is the avenue of tinfoilers.
Click to expand...

I didn't shift, I made two posts. The first one was about their application of their existing terms and conditions, following the other media companies and the high profile nature of the complaints against him (his case). The second was about the advertiser backlash as an apparent reason for their sudden decision to enforce their T&C despite their past efforts seemingly to avoid doing so.
They've been facing constant political and public pressure about Infowars and doing something about fake news since the election. They've explicitly said that aside from the new guidelines (which they weren't enforcing consistently) that they planned to only downrank fake news, not ban it. Specifically. In response to questions about Infowars.
I don't think AJ's sudden media coverage in itself was enough to make them switch positions, but Advertiser concerns have driven the majority of their changes to date, and advertisers have specifically reacted against Infowars.
If there's anyone feeding on CT material, it's your posting about the liberal agenda.
 
vengeful said:
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"
Click to expand...

I hadn't paid too much attention to it. But speaking your mind on your own time is one thing, doing it on the job is another; the latter has consequences if it doesn't follow a certain protocol of professionalism. In this particular case, they want to silence a person's voice completely, and not even allow them to have their own site to speak out. It's very extreme, authoritarian, and dangerous.
 
Prokofievian said:
Sorry, who is colluding with government to silence infowars while infowars has press credentials?
Click to expand...

You mean when Infowars claimed they had Press Cred and they didn't? I can give you a few names of left wing senators and congressmen openly lobbying for these companies to silence Jones.
 
GetTheseHands said:
You mean when Infowars claimed they had Press Cred and they didn't? I can give you a few names of left wing senators and congressmen openly lobbying for these companies to silence Jones.
Click to expand...

Who, and how are they lobbying?
 
He should be able to talk about sandy hook conspiracies or anything else, as long hes not advocating violence. As far as im aware he never has.
 
GetTheseHands said:
"Private company they can do what they want"

also

"if you CHOOSE to keep his content we will pressure and threaten you until you get rid of him"

then

"Private company they can do what they want"
Click to expand...

Sorry, bud. You'll have to go to InfoWars to jerk off from now on.
 
Screenshot-291.png


Checkmate InfoWars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,357
Messages
58,278,144
Members
175,990
Latest member
dobetterinc

Share this page

Back
Top