Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have finally banned blocked censored Infowars' Alex Jones ?

POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Friday, September 22, 2023 17:03
VIEWED: 8954
PAGE 5 of 7

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's beside the point.

---

That was Your point. Glad you see it now as nonsense.

---

That wasn't my point at all. I'm not shy about letting everybody in the RWED and the actual real world know that I have no desire to ever own a cell phone again, let alone a smart one. Hell... I don't even have cable TV or a television that is capable of getting the over the air HD stations either. I'm kicking it 1930's style here. If I hear the local air-raid siren and I care enough to do so, all I can do is turn on the alarm clock radio I have and set it to the emergency broadcast system.

I'm also not shy about letting people know I have no interest in facebook or twitter or instagram or any other social media platforms. I'll never own a device that invites Siri or OK Google into my home. I'd think at this point that would be abundantly clear from my posting history. I'd also think that it would be clear that I'm most comfortable being a loner and a long life of being on my own to figure things out has also made dealing with crisis on my own the way I prefer to do it.

I argue politics here with a reasonable level of anonymity. The government knows exactly who I am and where I live for sure. Or at least they could in 5 seconds if they ever felt the need to know. None of you guys do though. And I'm not posting my own asshole opinions on social media with my name where I've seen friends and family destroy their relationships.

This is not about me at all. I don't think I could be any more clear about that.

Quote:

---

In all seriousness - I checked out the rain thread. Best of luck sorting out your house and family and job issues. Really. This stuff we disagree about is mostly noise compared to those things.

---

Yeah. Thanks man. I actually started off the post to you different here, but it's nice having some rare instances where we can actually display a little humanity toward each other. Color me touched.

Short of a few days here and there where I kind of hit near-panic mode, I'd say I'm taking a lot better than I expected I would. For the first time in maybe 15 years, I have absolutely no clue what my future holds, yet it's not the end of the world.

I'll figure something out. I always do. At least when I'm sober... and I haven't even been tempted by the idea of drowning my sorrows this time around. Only took me 40 years to finally become an adult, I suppose. Better late than never.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

By the co-founder of Facebook

Quote:

---

It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

The last time I saw Mark Zuckerberg was in the summer of 2017, several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. We met at Facebook’s Menlo Park, Calif., office and drove to his house, in a quiet, leafy neighborhood. We spent an hour or two together while his toddler daughter cruised around. We talked politics mostly, a little about Facebook, a bit about our families. When the shadows grew long, I had to head out. I hugged his wife, Priscilla, and said goodbye to Mark.

Since then, Mark’s personal reputation and the reputation of Facebook have taken a nose-dive. The company’s mistakes — the sloppy privacy practices that dropped tens of millions of users’ data into a political consulting firm’s lap; the slow response to Russian agents, violent rhetoric and fake news; and the unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention — dominate the headlines. It’s been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven’t worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility.

Mark is still the same person I watched hug his parents as they left our dorm’s common room at the beginning of our sophomore year. He is the same person who procrastinated studying for tests, fell in love with his future wife while in line for the bathroom at a party and slept on a mattress on the floor in a small apartment years after he could have afforded much more. In other words, he’s human. But it’s his very humanity that makes his unchecked power so problematic.

Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government. He controls three core communications platforms — Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — that billions of people use every day. Facebook’s board works more like an advisory committee than an overseer, because Mark controls around 60 percent of voting shares. Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered. He sets the rules for how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech from the merely offensive, and he can choose to shut down a competitor by acquiring, blocking or copying it.

Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks. I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.

The government must hold Mark accountable. For too long, lawmakers have marveled at Facebook’s explosive growth and overlooked their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive. Any day now, the Federal Trade Commission is expected to impose a $5 billion fine on the company, but that is not enough; nor is Facebook’s offer to appoint some kind of privacy czar. After Mark’s congressional testimony last year, there should have been calls for him to truly reckon with his mistakes. Instead the legislators who questioned him were derided as too old and out of touch to understand how tech works. That’s the impression Mark wanted Americans to have, because it means little will change.

We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American.

It is time to break up Facebook.

We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We just seem to have forgotten about them.

America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person, because we are all fallible. That’s why the founders created a system of checks and balances. They didn’t need to foresee the rise of Facebook to understand the threat that gargantuan comp

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

This movement of public servants, scholars and activists deserves our support. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.

---

---

That's the one thing that makes this situation so sticky...

In almost any case I'd abhor the idea of the Government stepping in and "fixing" things. On the surface though, unlike the thousands of things our bloated and much-larger-than-it-should-have-ever-become government does every day, this is EXACTLY the type of thing our government was designed to defend its people against.

I find it extremely disappointing that the human race has been proven to be so hive-minded and easily homogenized to where something like Facebook could have even ever gained as much power as it has.

It's hopeful that alternative platforms to Facebook and Youtube and other social media are on the rise, but they're a bucket of water in an ocean and most of the MSM is constantly labeling anybody who defects and uses them "alt-right" or some other "basket of deplorables" phrase.

It's not surprising the MSM would do this. For nearly a decade, the MSM has been smearing Youtube and its users because they've been loosing viewership steadily since this type of interactive social media has risen up. Even today as they've made a large presence on Youtube and the algorithms have been redesigned to constantly make their stories trending above the users that made Youtube what it is today, they only get a small fraction of the views that independent journalists get there. They're losing a lot of money. CNN laying off 100 people this week is just more evidence of this.

With Trump in office, I doubt we'll ever see any Article 11/13 style legislation made in America, but the next time we have a Democrat president and house/senate majority, I could see this happening.

I don't' know what the answer is. I think if the government does anything, it should be limited only to breaking up these monopolies, and not a damn thing more. I feel it already pulls to many strings when it comes to social media by being able to influence its behavior via all the tax breaks. I don't want to ever see social media of any type become an official arm of the government, but I already am very uneasy about how much and the type of influence it already exerts over it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform. Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform.

---

Huh? This says exactly the oppsotie of what you intended. I think. I believe what you meant to say is ... And why the government can't have ANY power over any platform

In any case, this person is not arguing for government control of platforms, but breaking them up and letting competition providing the feedback.

Say, aren't you for "Medicare for all"? How does that fit into your "business rights" scenario?

Quote:

---

Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.

---

Maddow spouts lies every day. The NYT spouts lies every dy, as does CNN and WaPo. Just because they publish stuff that's against Trump doesn't mean any of it is true. But once you get rid of competition, then all you'll hear is one POV.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE nk. men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform. Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.

---

Well... to be fair, the wikipedia article you sent me to read does cover why Trump has a platform even though there have been calls for him to be de-platformed.

Quote:

---

In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls[7] to suspend U.S. President Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".[8]

---

Which, at the end of the day, sums up exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Wouldn't you rather have him tweeting his thoughts out there for everyone to read? Those who were always going to believe him will believe him. Those that wouldn't, won't. Those in the middle can read it and take it for what it's worth.

If he was de-platformed, you wouldn't have much of an idea of his thoughts on anything, would you?

I mean, take Mike Pence for instance. In May of 2019, it would almost be forgivable for somebody to forget who he even was. I bet if somebody did one of those "on the street" surveys you see on late night TV and asked the question "Who is Mike Pence?", there'd be a lot of people who would honestly have forgotten he's our current VP. The guy is a shadow. I can't recall hearing a peep out of him for over a year about anything. And if by some freak of nature an impeachment was made that actually resulted in Trump being ousted and Pence taking his place, he's an absolute unknown. You couldn't even begin to predict what he would do as President, other than maybe going over his brief stint as Governor of Indiana and what he did while he was there.



That goes for everybody, in my book. I think the freaking KKK should have a platform there, so long as they're not riling up hate mobs, activly engaging in serious threats or linking to their own sites where they do such stuff. I feel the same about the Black Isrealites, or even ISIS (or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days).

De-platforming anybody just forces them to share their thoughts in secret. It pushes them into the dark corners of the internet and also serves to justify their reasoning and anger and behavior.

I want to see anything and everything these people from all sides have to say. So they can be ridiculed. So they can be mocked. So their ideas can be destroyed.

Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing, CC. We are the ONLY country who has a constitutional right to it. If we start picking and choosing citizens who have that right, well... history shows that nothing good ever comes of that. Ever.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maddow spouts lies every day. The NYT spouts lies every dy, as does CNN and WaPo. Just because they publish stuff that's against Trump doesn't mean any of it is true. But once you get rid of competition, then all you'll hear is one POV.

---

Cites?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.

---

What is happening now isn't getting it right. If you think it is, then you or anybody you support politically are never the type of people who should be in charge of the country. Period.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.

---

You REALLY don't know how to read, do you? Or maybe it is that you don't know how to think?

I have posted many times that once you have to PAY to have your speech heard, it is no longer "free". And I don't mean "free" (as in beer) I mean "free" (as in freedom).

I HAVE been objecting to the control that MONEY has on free speech, because MONEY controls which speech is heard and which speech isn't.

Jeez, you're stupid.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
nk?
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME