First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last

Bad day for Alex Jones

Post Reply
qwueri 
26942 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

Shishiku wrote:

In all seriousness though, I do disagree with these moves & find their coordinated effort a bit scary.

The lawsuit from Sandy Hook based on defamation and "inciting violence" is one thing, but using that as a legal way to restrict free speech does not sit well with me. I also think by arguing that a conspiracy theorist is responsible for another human's actions places a dangerous precedent and tosses away the notion of individual responsibility/accountability.


More likely the lawsuit triggered those social media companies to cut the risk of being dragged into the lawsuit themselves.
26067 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
54 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

Shishiku wrote:

In all seriousness though, I do disagree with these moves & find their coordinated effort a bit scary.

The lawsuit from Sandy Hook based on defamation and "inciting violence" is one thing, but using that as a legal way to restrict free speech does not sit well with me. I also think by arguing that a conspiracy theorist is responsible for another human's actions places a dangerous precedent and tosses away the notion of individual responsibility/accountability.


I respectfully disagree. His free speech has not been restricted in any way. He can still make all the videos and podcasts he wants. Those platforms were well with in their right to kick him off for violating their terms of service.
32989 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
22 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

uncletim wrote:


Shishiku wrote:

In all seriousness though, I do disagree with these moves & find their coordinated effort a bit scary.

The lawsuit from Sandy Hook based on defamation and "inciting violence" is one thing, but using that as a legal way to restrict free speech does not sit well with me. I also think by arguing that a conspiracy theorist is responsible for another human's actions places a dangerous precedent and tosses away the notion of individual responsibility/accountability.


I respectfully disagree. His free speech has not been restricted in any way. He can still make all the videos and podcasts he wants. Those platforms were well with in their right to kick him off for violating their terms of service.


This is correct
6372 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18
looks to be the far left is just muzzling the right since they can't take them down any other way. don't be a conservative in today's era, it appears to be bad for business. so many actors, others, just muzzled thanks to being right. so much for free speech, when they speak it's okay, when others do it (right) it's bad. shame really, didn't care for the guy, but the left have hated him for awhile now because he speaks the truth, doesn't sugar coat it and gets his point across. now if only we can muzzle the left for their lies, fair is fair after all.
26067 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
54 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

niotabunny wrote:

looks to be the far left is just muzzling the right since they can't take them down any other way. don't be a conservative in today's era, it appears to be bad for business. so many actors, others, just muzzled thanks to being right. so much for free speech, when they speak it's okay, when others do it (right) it's bad. shame really, didn't care for the guy, but the left have hated him for awhile now because he speaks the truth, doesn't sugar coat it and gets his point across. now if only we can muzzle the left for their lies, fair is fair after all.


again how is his free speech been violated? He can still make all the videos and podcast he wants. The platforms were well with in their rights to kick him if he broke their rules unless of course you think Alex Jones and the far right are above the rules
2888 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

Mishio1 wrote:

I'm curious about why they chose to do so now of all times. Alas, I doubt it will have much effect on his base.


Important to understand prior to next.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_memo_key_points.pdf????
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fisa_title_i_summary.pdf

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1026099858288136194


must. keep. lemmings. eyes. averted.
at all costs!
6372 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18
the far left are under the illusion they are above the rules and no one should be, so what if he spoke his mind, he could still get his opinion out, buy a spot in Sirius Radio, that tends to be where some of "them" go do. he could pull a Bill O and fund his own spot to get his opinions out. I find it odd that now that they can't silence the right one way they are shooting for another method. but, they have been after Alex for a good long while now, he's so hated by the far left that he even made it into Law and Order (another show based more on far left politics than anything else).

in all honesty I don't know why he's even on the far left social media sites, failbook, twits, etc. they are all bad news, they have been censoring the right for years now, looks like they are going a new round in curving truths and making certain only lies takes root. when you delete all opinions, it's not really opinions anymore, and it gives people the inability to consider there are more than one way to think.
26067 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
54 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

niotabunny wrote:

the far left are under the illusion they are above the rules and no one should be, so what if he spoke his mind, he could still get his opinion out, buy a spot in Sirius Radio, that tends to be where some of "them" go do. he could pull a Bill O and fund his own spot to get his opinions out. I find it odd that now that they can't silence the right one way they are shooting for another method. but, they have been after Alex for a good long while now, he's so hated by the far left that he even made it into Law and Order (another show based more on far left politics than anything else).

in all honesty I don't know why he's even on the far left social media sites, failbook, twits, etc. they are all bad news, they have been censoring the right for years now, looks like they are going a new round in curving truths and making certain only lies takes root. when you delete all opinions, it's not really opinions anymore, and it gives people the inability to consider there are more than one way to think.


Again how was his freedom of speech been violated? Is the question to hard for you? I can't think of a way to phrase more simple for you
15707 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

niotabunny wrote:

the far left are under the illusion they are above the rules and no one should be, so what if he spoke his mind, he could still get his opinion out, buy a spot in Sirius Radio, that tends to be where some of "them" go do. he could pull a Bill O and fund his own spot to get his opinions out. I find it odd that now that they can't silence the right one way they are shooting for another method. but, they have been after Alex for a good long while now, he's so hated by the far left that he even made it into Law and Order (another show based more on far left politics than anything else).

in all honesty I don't know why he's even on the far left social media sites, failbook, twits, etc. they are all bad news, they have been censoring the right for years now, looks like they are going a new round in curving truths and making certain only lies takes root. when you delete all opinions, it's not really opinions anymore, and it gives people the inability to consider there are more than one way to think.


how is facebook, youtube, apple, etc enforcing their own community guidelines equate to "far left" (whatever that means) somehow being "above the rules?". the logic here doesnt compute.

true, there are more than one way to think, but that doesnt mean all of them are logical / make sense.
16770 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

uncletim wrote:


Shishiku wrote:

In all seriousness though, I do disagree with these moves & find their coordinated effort a bit scary.

The lawsuit from Sandy Hook based on defamation and "inciting violence" is one thing, but using that as a legal way to restrict free speech does not sit well with me. I also think by arguing that a conspiracy theorist is responsible for another human's actions places a dangerous precedent and tosses away the notion of individual responsibility/accountability.


I respectfully disagree. His free speech has not been restricted in any way. He can still make all the videos and podcasts he wants. Those platforms were well with in their right to kick him off for violating their terms of service.


I agree with the concept that a platform has the right to dictate what content is released on their platform. I disagree in that these platforms are all monopolies and have little to no substitutes and therein lies my issue. He's utilized the space for over a decade with no issues thus far, that's a pretty long precedent to not take action. If it were flipped to not allowing LGBT support topics or articles about racial equality people would lose their minds over it and an argument of "free to restrict content" would quickly turn into discrimination (granted not a great analogy by any stretch of the imagination)...Alex Jones is an easy target because he's fringe and only a small loon bin of individuals will genuinely care.

I think Qwueri up there has the most valid point. It saves face for all the companies to take him down because I am sure they have been flooded with pressure to remove him for years now, and with a lawsuit looking very likely to win - there is some liable risk for them to allow his content.
16650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18
He repeatedly violated their TOS and therefore was banned. This isn't about the Sandy Hook lawsuit, it is about him not following the rules and these areas deciding not to host his content.
14002 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

sundin13 wrote:

He repeatedly violated their TOS and therefore was banned. This isn't about the Sandy Hook lawsuit, it is about him not following the rules and these areas deciding not to host his content.


Anybody who shares content and heavily uses social media will inevitably violate TOS repeatedly. Just think of all the people violate Crunchyroll's TOS (see 3c) or the people quoting news sources (thus violating the news sites' TOS contracts) on the Miscellaneous forums (and therefore also breaking 3b in Crunchyroll TOS). The main difference is that here they choose to care.

I don't know anything about Sandy Hook being relevant or not.
38437 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

Shishiku wrote:

I agree with the concept that a platform has the right to dictate what content is released on their platform. I disagree in that these platforms are all monopolies and have little to no substitutes and therein lies my issue. He's utilized the space for over a decade with no issues thus far, that's a pretty long precedent to not take action. If it were flipped to not allowing LGBT support topics or articles about racial equality people would lose their minds over it and an argument of "free to restrict content" would quickly turn into discrimination (granted not a great analogy by any stretch of the imagination)...Alex Jones is an easy target because he's fringe and only a small loon bin of individuals will genuinely care.

I think Qwueri up there has the most valid point. It saves face for all the companies to take him down because I am sure they have been flooded with pressure to remove him for years now, and with a lawsuit looking very likely to win - there is some liable risk for them to allow his content.

Precedent is a legal concept though, it isn't particularly relevant here. These platforms (YouTube, etc.) have always been (and always will be) able to remove anybody, at any time, for any (or no) reason at all - precedent be damned. A lack of alternative platforms is no concern of theirs either, as it were. The only real limitation upon that power is customer backlash, which will likely be limited in this case (as you said) because Alex Jones is a fringe nutcase.

Monopolies suck. YouTube does have some competitors starting to crop up, because they have been pissing in a lot of people's soup the last few years. Amusingly though, I've frequently heard about P***Hub of all things being used for content booted off YouTube for whatever reason.
16650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/18 , edited 8/6/18

jtjumper wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

He repeatedly violated their TOS and therefore was banned. This isn't about the Sandy Hook lawsuit, it is about him not following the rules and these areas deciding not to host his content.


Anybody who shares content and heavily uses social media will inevitably violate TOS repeatedly. Just think of all the people violate Crunchyroll's TOS (see 3c) or the people quoting news sources (thus violating the news sites' TOS contracts) on the Miscellaneous forums (aand therefore also breaking 3b in Crunchyroll TOS). The main difference is that here they choose to care.

I don't know anything about Sandy Hook being relevant or not.


Maybe "Community Standards" (for Facebook. I'm sure the other sites use different terminology) would be a more relevant term than "TOS", however, I don't think the differentiation makes much difference. The fact is, these sites have certain rules and this individual violated those rules. His status certainly makes a difference, as some random person posting something on Facebook with zero friends likely won't be noticed by Facebook or reported, however, I don't think that is in any way a criticism of this decision but instead a natural consequence of notoriety.

Further, could you elaborate on your assertion that people are regularly violating 3c and 3b in Crunchyroll's TOS? Both of those aren't really "rules" so much as an assertion that Crunchy can use anything you put on the website and you don't own the things Crunchyroll posts. I don't see how that is regularly "violated", without delving into some weird interpretations.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.