Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of your arguments are based on Political opposition to Alex Jones. The things he has said about Sandy Hook being fake while hurtful is no different then a 3 hour video on how the holocaust was faked. Just search on YouTube for Hola-Hoax. What about the hurt those people are doing, and have been doing for years. What's YouTube been doing about that???? I have spent hours reporting those people to youtube and nothing is done none of the channels, or videos were ever taken down. One must wonder this recent action YouTube is taking on one man is nothing more then political at best.
Obviously you haven't read this thread and thr post you quoted was out of context.
I don't believe that anyone is entitled to the resources of a private entity. That is irregardless of who or what the context of their speach is. I support Youtubes right to determine content as a business decision. I support the baker's right to determine what services they do and do not offer.
I also called on the hypocritical stance of a so called conservatives that claim to be pro business rights but with exceptions that are convenient to their own opinions and views. They cherry pick when business rights apply according to their biases.
You are making this purely about AJ on my part is a shameful move.
Including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act, Consumer Protection laws, Family Medical Leave Act, etc? I agree!
None of those precede private r property rights of individuals and businesses. YouTubes decision over content hasn't broken any civil nor human rights.
For example... A business cannot deny a person based on religion. So a Bible store cannot refuse to sell bibles to a customer because they are a Jewish customer. On the same token, a Jewish customer cannot force a Bible store to sell Torah.
Just like YouTube, the Bible store as a private entity has the right to determine how their business is run and what goods and services are offered. No one's rights have been violated.... Certainly not AJ.
Again... Of you are a conservative... Ask yourself.
Are you pro business and individual rights? Or are you for entitlements over private property?
Are you willing to force conservative platforms, like godtube, to host LGBTQ and prochoice materials that are counter to their views and how it applies to their private business?
Questions like this has been asked numerous times with no response
I think a misnomer of InfoWars' spike is how we have people going there who use to listen to him on Facebook, YouTube, iTunes/Apple Music or Spotify who now cannot. This is a justified and expected effect of the bans. I don't like Jones but I would expect that. That said, I'm fully behind them denying business but yet am against the whole gay wedding cake issue because gays (in that state) are covered as a protected class while political views aren't and Alex Jones broke terms of use according to the companies.
That said the content is the problem on the platform, not the platform. I think Jones' content is based on lies if not half or more so quarter truths. I mean PizzaGate was a total and complete lie which Jones later had to recant. Sandy Hook and Parkland being faked aren't as easy to prove/disprove but he has caused parents of victims to be harassed and defamed an alleged shooter (who was proven to not be the Parkland shooter.) Compare this to the Hola-hoax, they do not put forth harassment of those who claim it is real and just puts forth a theory like 9/11 being an inside job or the Vegas shooting being a false-flag. If you believe these theories, you'll be open to Jones. I'm not and think he is just a tin-foil hat wearing moron.
I think a misnomer of InfoWars' spike is how we have people going there who use to listen to him on Facebook, YouTube, iTunes/Apple Music or Spotify who now cannot. This is a justified and expected effect of the bans. I don't like Jones but I would expect that. That said, I'm fully behind them denying business but yet am against the whole gay wedding cake issue because gays (in that state) are covered as a protected class while political views aren't and Alex Jones broke terms of use according to the companies.
That said the content is the problem on the platform, not the platform. I think Jones' content is based on lies if not half or more so quarter truths. I mean PizzaGate was a total and complete lie which Jones later had to recant. Sandy Hook and Parkland being faked aren't as easy to prove/disprove but he has caused parents of victims to be harassed and defamed an alleged shooter (who was proven to not be the Parkland shooter.) Compare this to the Hola-hoax, they do not put forth harassment of those who claim it is real and just puts forth a theory like 9/11 being an inside job or the Vegas shooting being a false-flag. If you believe these theories, you'll be open to Jones. I'm not and think he is just a tin-foil hat wearing moron.
You all are missing the forests for the trees. This is not about Alex Jones - love him, or hate him. This is about censorship.
Before the explosion of the internet, there were few sources to acquire your news and all were controlled by corporations with close ties to the US government. With the advent of the internet, there was an explosion of independent news platforms.
Eventually few companies swallowed the lion share of these social media outlets (namely FB and Google).
Now, the old-guard (CNN, print media) are screaming 'Fake News' and FB and Google are busy purging their platforms of these third party platforms.
What we're moving to is less third party news sources and more corporate decision making on what news is 'acceptable.'
You all are missing the forests for the trees. This is not about Alex Jones - love him, or hate him. This is about censorship.
Before the explosion of the internet, there were few sources to acquire your news and all were controlled by corporations with close ties to the US government. With the advent of the internet, there was an explosion of independent news platforms.
Eventually few companies swallowed the lion share of these social media outlets (namely FB and Google).
Now, the old-guard (CNN, print media) are screaming 'Fake News' and FB and Google are busy purging their platforms of these third party platforms.
What we're moving to is less third party news sources and more corporate decision making on what news is 'acceptable.'
Everyone here should be screaming about it.
And if we go with your opinion on this....how would you want to see it fixed?
You all are missing the forests for the trees. This is not about Alex Jones - love him, or hate him. This is about censorship.
Before the explosion of the internet, there were few sources to acquire your news and all were controlled by corporations with close ties to the US government. With the advent of the internet, there was an explosion of independent news platforms.
Eventually few companies swallowed the lion share of these social media outlets (namely FB and Google).
Now, the old-guard (CNN, print media) are screaming 'Fake News' and FB and Google are busy purging their platforms of these third party platforms.
What we're moving to is less third party news sources and more corporate decision making on what news is 'acceptable.'
Everyone here should be screaming about it.
No I am not, you are not seeing the forest from the trees. This case of "censorship" was because of Alex Jones doing the Alex Jones stiche and not just censorship for censorship sake like say Diamond and Silk alleged of Facebook (it didn't.) Alex Jones' "censorship" was because he broke terms of use on the platforms he was using along with InfoWars itself. This wasn't because of "Fake News", but rather defamatory language especially hate speech. This isn't about "Fake News" that got him dropped from the various platforms, it is about attacking people. Let;s not conflate censorship for fake news with censorship for hate speech. This was far from the alleged Diamond and Silk situation which would have been censorship for "Fake News".
As for me, I'm not against third party news, I'm fine with them regardless of their political leaning, what I am against is yellow journalism or uncredible sources. InfoWars is not credible nor is Breitbart. Every once in a while Breitbart has a decent article or InfoWars maybe right, but for the most part they aren't due to being disingenuous and biased. In another post, a certain InfoWars and Breitbart quoting user quoted an article that didn't include an issue that showed it wasn't just against conservatives like the article made it believe to be. InfoWars is just a bunch of conspiracy theories with little to no truth to them. I'm sure there are a few liberal sources that are similar to these outlets and I don't follow them either.
If you believe Alex Jones was booted by Apple, Google, and FB for saying the word 'tranny' than you're a bigger fool than I thought. Ignore my response to you: pearls before swine.
And if we go with your opinion on this....how would you want to see it fixed?
I would like to see several things. One would be to regulate a lot of these social media giants as public utilities the other would be to apply anti-trust laws to many of these corporate news networks much smaller. This goes for Google (separate YouTube from Google) but also Time Warner etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
