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 2 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, is there anywhere a list of who has been deplatformed/ banned/ shadowbanned?
I know that Alex Jones has. I would listen to him now and again, and he'd go off the rails with his "lizard people" rant, but OTOH he sometimes reported true events or trends that nobody else would. In my view, he was a person to (mostly) ignore, but he didn't break any of rules about hate speech or libel, so ...?
Paul Joseph Watson. I used to listen to him more frequently than Alex Jones; having heard something like a dozen of his opinions I think I have a pretty good sampling of what he posted. He would skewer some of the liberaloid trends like sexualized art, or the banning of Yani, but aside from being ascerbic and funny, I see no reason whatsover to deplatform him.
James Woods, banned from Twitter. I think I've seen a tweet or two of his; I thought they were pretty tame stuff. Did he post hate speech or defame people or incite violence or threaten anyone?
Who else?
The news comes out in dribs and drabs ... creeping censorship by the tech giants. What is the full scope?
And then, if they're banning on content (and not because people are violating laws like making threats and incitement to violence or defamation) doesn't that make these platforms "publishers", with all of the responsibility that that implies?
-----------
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
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
Your sentence structure in this post reminds me of Jaynestown’s ... interesting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Our Pro Censorship Dem-Bots here should watch this.
I’m a pro business rights advocate. Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another tinfoil hat moment from GSTRING? Interesting.
So, is there anywhere a list of who has been deplatformed/ banned/ shadowbanned?
I know that Alex Jones has. I would listen to him now and again, and he'd go off the rails with his "lizard people" rant, but OTOH he sometimes reported true events or trends that nobody else would. In my view, he was a person to (mostly) ignore, but he didn't break any of rules about hate speech or libel, so ...?
Paul Joseph Watson. I used to listen to him more frequently than Alex Jones; having heard something like a dozen of his opinions I think I have a pretty good sampling of what he posted. He would skewer some of the liberaloid trends like sexualized art, or the banning of Yani, but aside from being ascerbic and funny, I see no reason whatsover to deplatform him.
James Woods, banned from Twitter. I think I've seen a tweet or two of his; I thought they were pretty tame stuff. Did he post hate speech or defame people or incite violence or threaten anyone?
Who else?
The news comes out in dribs and drabs ... creeping censorship by the tech giants. What is the full scope?
And then, if they're banning on content (and not because people are violating laws like making threats and incitement to violence or defamation) doesn't that make these platforms "publishers", with all of the responsibility that that implies. -SIGNY
Your sentence structure in this post reminds me of Jaynestown’s ... interesting.- GSTRING
-----------
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
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. I always knew you were a fascist. Thanks for admitting it.
I’m a pro business rights advocate. GSTRING
Quote:Bad analogy. Customers come into a restaurant to eat, not to listen to random people spout off. People use social media to communicate, that IS the purpose, is it not? So when people are banned because they use social media for its intended purpose ....
Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh. GSTRING
But there's a different issue at play besides free speech or even EULAs: Platforms are exempted from all kinds of liability (defamation, fraud, hate speech, incitement to violence etc) because THEY claim that they don't control the content, so the responsibility goes to the person who posts. It's a specific LEGAL exemption that applies to social media: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The exemption was granted to social media JUST BECAUSE they claim not to control content.
With the people who have been banned, deplatformed, demonetized, or shadow-banned, there isn't even the remote possibility that they're "Russian" and that they might represent even a whisper of Russian influence; these people have been banned BECAUSE of their content.
So now it looks to me like the platforms have crossed the line into "publishers" and no longer deserve the exemption that they like to claim.
I hope somebody files a nice big fat juicy lawsuit against them. Not on "freedom of speech" grounds but on that Section 230 exemption.
That, after all, is the American Way.
-----------
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
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll be alright with letting entities like Facebook and Twitter censor stuff when they don't allow politicians to platform, and Silicon Valley multi-national businesses aren't being given tax breaks that amount to them paying as much as the Catholic church pays in taxes every year.
These social media corporations are essentially an arm of the government that is just far enough removed and the details obfuscated that they can get around any legality surrounding censorship by claiming "muh big business".
It's all bullshit. And mark my words if it were people on the left that were being de-platformed every other day you'd be crying about it right now too. That day will come. I'll remember to check up on your thoughts about it when it does.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bad analogy. Customers come into a restaurant to eat, not to listen to random people spout off. People use social media to communicate, that IS the purpose, is it not? So when people are banned because they use social media for its intended purpose ....
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Yep. I always knew you were a fascist. Thanks for admitting it.
I’m a pro business rights advocate. GSTRINGQuote:
Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh. GSTRING
But there's a different issue at play besides free speech or even EULAs: Platforms are exempted from all kinds of liability (defamation, fraud, hate speech, incitement to violence etc) because THEY claim that they don't control the content, so the responsibility goes to the person who posts. It's a specific LEGAL exemption that applies to social media: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The exemption was granted to social media JUST BECAUSE they claim not to control content.
With the people who have been banned, deplatformed, demonetized, or shadow-banned, there isn't even the remote possibility that they're "Russian" and that they might represent even a whisper of Russian influence; these people have been banned BECAUSE of their content.
So now it looks to me like the platforms have crossed the line into "publishers" and no longer deserve the exemption that they like to claim.
I hope somebody files a nice big fat juicy lawsuit against them. Not on "freedom of speech" grounds but on that Section 230 exemption.
That, after all, is the American Way.
Supporting small businesses is fascist? The stupid sh@t you post. What country were you raised in? Do you use any products or services provided by any businesses? So, according to you, you support fascism. Yeah, the stupid sh@t you post!
And, no, it's not a perfect analogy, but neither is yours. More to the point, we shouldn’t f@cking need one - the concept should be bloody obvious. If you knew anyone that ran their own business - even a soup cart - you’d know customers can be entitled @ssholes who think they should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of owner’s rights or other users’ rights. You’re the perfect example of a consumer who is consumed with their own desires and screw everyone else.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get these.
https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-use-twitter-a
lerts
If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Infowars has been banned from Twitter, but it seems to have found a new home over on Trump's Twitter feed.
The president evidently believes Infowars is useful to him. Maggie Haberman of The New York Times said the tweets over the weekend were "reminiscent of candidate Trump in 2015, for whom folks who listen to Alex Jones were a solid group of supporters to his primary candidacy."
Trump is simultaneously trying to tear down credible sources for news, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN. He was questioning why these news organizations have the ability to be on Twitter -- while saying that Infowars should be reinstated. It's nuts.
www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/media/infowars-trump/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
CC - They control the content on their service, but not the Internet, as it should be. If you think Twitter is the Internet then you’re an idiot. And if using Twitter is so important perhaps dumbsh@t should have used it according to their guidelines? It’s pretty hard to get thrown off unless you’re a moron or a professional agitator or both. Not to mention, people quit Twitter and Facebook etc all the time and manage to live normal lives. You’re bitching about nothing again.
6 - For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get alerts.
CC - 
omg! No gov alerts! Everyone must use Twitter! I’ve never seen one in years. What do people without Twitter do??? Move to another country? That’s so lame.
6 - If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
CC so what do you and Rue and Sig4brains and jsf do for alerts? I bet none of you are on Twitter, even though according to you it’s so vital. More whining about nothing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
CC - They control the content on their service, but not the Internet, as it should be. If you think Twitter is the Internet then you’re an idiot. And if using Twitter is so important perhaps dumbsh@t should have used it according to their guidelines? It’s pretty hard to get thrown off unless you’re a moron or a professional agitator or both. Not to mention, people quit Twitter and Facebook etc all the time and manage to live normal lives. You’re bitching about nothing again.
6 - For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get alerts.
CC -
6 - If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
CC so what do you and Rue and Sig4brains and jsf do for alerts? I bet none of you are on Twitter, even though according to you it’s so vital. More whining about nothing.
It's not whining about nothing.
You have no concept of what the future holds. If somebody told you that everybody would be walking around with computers in their pockets that were 1,000 times more powerful your desktop PC was, and told you how this was going to change the world, you would have laughed.
Venues today are starting to make you download apps to your phone that take great liberties with your personal information in order to get a "secure" ticket that can't be duplicated. There are events today that you can't even get into without a smart phone, such as the upcoming Blizzcon.
As these machines are being forced upon people over the coming years by excluding people from being able to do things without them, we might find ourselves unable to buy food without one some day.
But all of this is beside the point...
Twitter and Facebook are the Government. They don't pay taxes and they are the social platform for politicians. They have no right to de-platform anybody, and it is unconstitutional censorship when they do.
The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.
They're not censoring people for threats or advocating violence. They're censoring people because of their political beliefs.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME