Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

franklinstower said:
All I am saying man is that the picture is WAY bigger than the scam that Alex Jones tries to run on the country and that we are at war with him and his amphibian ilk and even though that war cannot be declared or admitted too it is war nonetheless. Jones had to be handled in a way that world not upset the balance man.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


i'm kidding; i'm not sure what your trying to say, or if you're making jokes.
 
sniper said:
Your conspiracy here is even too conspiratorial for me. I'm having trouble following you here bud.
Click to expand...


My point is Alex Jones is utterly full of shit and everything he spews is a distraction and he is pat of a conspiratorial movement of amphibious multidimensional to control the world population. It is why he is always blaming the reptilians who are actually not that bad (neutral really) but who have had run ins with the amphibians over many millennia.

Jones had to be silenced and this is how they did it and I know how it looks. It looks like he was speaking truth to power and got too close and then got silenced by corporations backed probably by government interests but I dont believe it.

I really think he was silenced by government interests but for reasons that are totally altruistic and in the public interest but for reasons that they cannot share for public safety.
 
franklinstower said:
My point is Alex Jones is utterly full of shit and everything he spews is a distraction and he is pat of a conspiratorial movement of amphibious multidimensional to control the world population. It is why he is always blaming the reptilians who are actually not that bad (neutral really) but who have had run ins with the amphibians over many millennia.

Jones had to be silenced and this is how they did it and I know how it looks. It looks like he was speaking truth to power and got too close and then got silenced by corporations backed probably by government interests but I dont believe it.

I really think he was silenced by government interests but for reasons that are totally altruistic and in the public interest but for reasons that they cannot share for public safety.
Click to expand...
I'm going to need @N13 to help me out right here. I just dont know who to trust anymore.
 
Naw-- just kidding. I am an armature writer and was just trying out my best sort of improvisational sci fi creative writting experiment.
 
K1levelgrappler said:
lol @ anyone who thinks an N word tape would cost Trump a single supporter
Click to expand...
That's going to depend on context. If he's using it in a hateful way you're damn right it will. Now if he's singing along to some old NWA albums that's a different story.
 
ImNotSurpisedDonks! said:
Starbucks is not a monopoly. If you want coffee, you can go to McDonalds. There is simply no other option to Facebook or YouTube, therefor they are monopolies and the internet is in dire need of a Bill Of Rights. If there was another video streaming service that had the butt loads of bandwidth that they let us burn on the tax payers dime, then it would not be a problem, and it's being disingenuous to not acknowledge this as anything other than election meddling directly before the election.
Click to expand...

Wait... So are you suggesting government regulation would be a solution here?? But they would be impeding on these private companies' profits?!? The horror!

By the way, I'm actually against what Facebook and YouTube did here (Apple isn't a monopoly in this way, despite how large the company is), but you've got to admit how hypocritical the butthurt reactions going on are. There's a reason why discrimination laws exist, and the mantra of pure privatization in a vacuum is clearly ridiculous.
 
ElKarlo said:
No. Facebook and Google are indeed monopolies . They together have 90% of all online ad revenue. Saying there's other services is like saying you can get a non Doctor pepper, coke, Pepsi product at a soda fountain. Yes tbey exist but rare and lack scale
Click to expand...

The internet is nothing like a soda fountain. The number or scale of available websites (flavors) you can choose from isn’t effected if a few become very popular. The ability to make or access a website that streams crisis actor content like infowars isn’t suddenly impossible now that Google and FB are popular flavors.

Alex Jones can find investors for conspiracy-tube.com and stream his rants, YouTube isn’t stopping him from doing that by opting to not host them as well. Because YouTube doesn’t want to devote their resources to hosting his bullshit and claim it falls outside the content they choose to distribute doesn’t mean Alex Jones is a victim of a monopoly. The unpopularity of his extremist beliefs making it very difficult to find large companies to distribute his media is an Alex Jone’s content issue, not a monopoly issue.
 
He was a con artist hocking his own brand of dooms day prepper shit to idiots who ate up all of his conspiracy theories. Nothing of value was lost here.
 
shockaholic12 said:
The internet is nothing like a soda fountain. The number or scale of available websites (flavors) you can choose from isn’t effected if a few become very popular. The ability to make or access a website that streams crisis actor content like infowars isn’t suddenly impossible now that Google and FB are popular flavors.

Alex Jones can find investors for conspiracy-tube.com and stream his rants, YouTube isn’t stopping him from doing that by opting to not host them as well. Because YouTube doesn’t want to devote their resources to hosting his bullshit and claim it falls outside the content they choose to distribute doesn’t mean Alex Jones is a victim of a monopoly. The unpopularity of his extremist beliefs making it very difficult to find large companies to distribute his media is an Alex Jone’s content issue, not a monopoly issue.
Click to expand...

You know he has this right?

It's called infowars.com.

I think it is funny they tried to do this to Jones. There is not a guy out there that would be effected by this less.
 
VivaRevolution said:
You know he has this right?

It's called infowars.com.

I think it is funny they tried to do this to Jones. There is not a guy out there that would be effected by this less.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know it exists. It’s my point. There isn’t a monopoly on the internet stopping Jones from having his own website and distributing his content to anyone who seeks it.
 
Renard said:
I just found out H3h3 got a strike from youtube in a middle of a livestream because they were discussing Alex Jones; they were talking in favour of YT. Since then YT has removed the strike and said it was a "mistake". This probably means the youtube algorithm immediately flags anyone even discussing Alex Jones or his ban, regardless of what kind of commentary they're making about it. It's dystopian shit. Alex Jones? Alex Jones never existed, and we'll ban you and your videos if ever bring him up.

Click to expand...

Aren't the people giving the infringements low-wage workers in South-East Asia etc? I know the people responsible for sifting through the massive pile of shit that gets uploaded are from the Phillipines, they don't get paid a lot and they go crazy after a few months.
 
shockaholic12 said:
The internet is nothing like a soda fountain. The number or scale of available websites (flavors) you can choose from isn’t effected if a few become very popular. The ability to make or access a website that streams crisis actor content like infowars isn’t suddenly impossible now that Google and FB are popular flavors.

Alex Jones can find investors for conspiracy-tube.com and stream his rants, YouTube isn’t stopping him from doing that by opting to not host them as well. Because YouTube doesn’t want to devote their resources to hosting his bullshit and claim it falls outside the content they choose to distribute doesn’t mean Alex Jones is a victim of a monopoly. The unpopularity of his extremist beliefs making it very difficult to find large companies to distribute his media is an Alex Jone’s content issue, not a monopoly issue.
Click to expand...
Again YT and FB have basically the whole market. There really isn't another option. Which is why my soda foundation analogy is apt.
I don't like AJ and thibk he's a kook. But that doesn't mean that YT and FB can't control the media at this point . They and twitter basically are interfering in politics right now, esp twitter .
 
ElKarlo said:
Again YT and FB have basically the whole market. There really isn't another option. Which is why my soda foundation analogy is apt.
I don't like AJ and thibk he's a kook. But that doesn't mean that YT and FB can't control the media at this point . They and twitter basically are interfering in politics right now, esp twitter .
Click to expand...

You're wrong, there are over a dozen other search engines anyone can easily find and use besides Google. Just because a lot of folks including seemingly you prefer Google's engine doesn't remove those options. You choose to search on Google or share a video on youtube instead of using a different site or building your own page because it's the most convenient option, not because it's the only option.

Media distributors like YT and FB are free to edit what content they host like any TV network can deny giving him airtime.
 
Last edited:
shockaholic12 said:
You're wrong, there are over a dozen other search engines anyone can easily find and use besides Google. Just because a lot of folks including seemingly you prefer Google's engine doesn't remove those options. You choose to search on Google or share a video on youtube instead of using a different site or building your own page because it's the most convenient option, not because it's the only option.

Media distributors like YT and FB are free to edit what content they host like any TV network can deny giving him airtime.
Click to expand...
Again, yes others exist, yet there's no money and hence no reason to use them. You're not actually adding anything to your argument. It's not me, it's society as a whole has chosen YT as a source for most.videos and hence most ad revenue
 
ElKarlo said:
Again, yes others exist, yet there's no money and hence no reason to use them. You're not actually adding anything to your argument. It's not me, it's society as a whole has chosen YT as a source for most.videos and hence most ad revenue
Click to expand...

What you are describing is not a monopoly. There is no monopoly controlling who can post videos on the internet to attract viewers. You keep explaining that some websites are well liked and vastly popular and get most of the advertisers. Well that's not prohibiting any other site from trying to compete. That's just being popular which is completely different and not in any way a monopoly.

To be a monopoly there has to be some finite commodity being controlled like water, gas, or there has to be a lack of options like cable companies, or there has to be some very high cost of entrance into the industry, etc. Obviously Alex Jones or anyone else can make a website and stream content and profit from it without using YT. YT is one website that does not have to treat itself like a public forum and dedicate it's funds to hosting shit like Alex Jones.
 
If he can't sell his Super Male Vitality anymore, maybe he'll go back to being Bill Hicks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,148
Messages
58,262,133
Members
175,984
Latest member
Omar Ahmed Lotfy

Share this page

Back
Top