Current Events > Alex Jones "banned completely" from Facebook, Apple and Spotify

(+) Yeah! (+)

not going to read this thread but i bet these happened

-censorship!
-relating this to net neutrality as if they're the same.
-bitching about first amendment.

womps and prayers.
---

Maybe in the near future political affiliation will be recognized as a protected civil right.

You won't be able to womp womp then!
---

Funbazooka posted...

Maybe in the near future political affiliation will be recognized as a protected civil right.

You won't be able to womp womp then!

Yeah they'll just finally lump Conservatism under the "disability" category.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Maybe in the near future political affiliation will be recognized as a protected civil right.

You won't be able to womp womp then!

Yeah they'll just finally lump Conservatism under the "disability" category.

lol....
might happen tbh
---

Funbazooka posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Incorrect. They concoct fake news and also report real news in the context of using it to propagate additional fake news.

Agreed, actually. Like CNN and others. That's what the news is today.

Nope. Only the lowest of the low and brainwashiest of the brainwashed believe CNN is fake news. Many of the outwardly anti-CNN crowd are fake people like Alex Jones.

CNN is not fake news and this is indisputable fact. They are left-biased. They choose to downplay or ignore stories that speak to narratives they dislike. They push stories that that speak to narratives they support. Those are also indisputable facts. CNN has sacrificed a significant portion of their journalistic integrity and I will argue that fact at anyone on the left who would argue otherwise. However, they are far from fake news which is defined by the tactics of Alex Jones. CNN has problems, but they are far from that...
---

@-Gavirulax- posted...

Squidkids posted...

who is this guy?
https://twitter.com/MomoBlossomYuki/status/1026849303896248320
it is the most liked tweet i ever got rofl

I've briefly spoken to him after watching him debate Atheism is Unstoppable on youtube. Somewhat more charismatic conservative, rather defensive with religion also.

you spoke to him personally?????????
interesting
---

Infowars ban is a hoax and Alex Jones is a crisis actor.
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Infowars ban is a hoax and Alex Jones is a crisis actor.

---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Incorrect. They concoct fake news and also report real news in the context of using it to propagate additional fake news.

Agreed, actually. Like CNN and others. That's what the news is today.

Nope. Only the lowest of the low and brainwashiest of the brainwashed believe CNN is fake news. Many of the outwardly anti-CNN crowd are fake people like Alex Jones.

CNN is not fake news and this is indisputable fact. They are left-biased. They choose to downplay or ignore stories that speak to narratives they dislike. They push stories that that speak to narratives they support. Those are also indisputable facts. CNN has sacrificed a significant portion of their journalistic integrity and I will argue that fact at anyone on the left who would argue otherwise. However, they are far from fake news which is defined by the tactics of Alex Jones. CNN has problems, but they are far from that...

why do you continue to respond to this guy?

he's on his computer laughing and you're typing up serious but unnecessary responses.
---

Hexenherz posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Incorrect. They concoct fake news and also report real news in the context of using it to propagate additional fake news.

Agreed, actually. Like CNN and others. That's what the news is today.

Nope. Only the lowest of the low and brainwashiest of the brainwashed believe CNN is fake news. Many of the outwardly anti-CNN crowd are fake people like Alex Jones.

CNN is not fake news and this is indisputable fact. They are left-biased. They choose to downplay or ignore stories that speak to narratives they dislike. They push stories that that speak to narratives they support. Those are also indisputable facts. CNN has sacrificed a significant portion of their journalistic integrity and I will argue that fact at anyone on the left who would argue otherwise. However, they are far from fake news which is defined by the tactics of Alex Jones. CNN has problems, but they are far from that...

why do you continue to respond to this guy?

he's on his computer laughing and you're typing up serious but unnecessary responses.

Do you want a serious answer? I will give it to you, just be warned, it's real life shit...

I was walking home and a thunderstorm happened. My boss owns another business and it's in the center of town. I stopped over, even they were closed. I hid from the storm for a bit. I had to. I'm paranoid about lightning. They let me in because I name dropped. I was just sitting around so I went back on gamefaqs and posted again. The last employee locked up and it was still storming and getting worse so I was like "fuck I gotta get home" and left. That last employee actually tracked me down and pulled over while I was walking and she was all "wtf. I was about to offer you a ride but you ran out lol" and I was all "Well I'm less than 10 minutes away. You didn't have to do that lol :P I just wanted to beat the storm and I had hoped it would have passed by the time I had to leave.

Edit: oops, forgot the important part. I was bored while I was waiting so I responded to that whatever he was post... caution or hypro or funbazooka or whoever. Just passing time.
---

BWLurker posted...

Isn't this just the free market at work? The companies aren't being made to do this by the government. Alex Jones is such a piece of shit that they'd lose popular opinion and thus profits by keeping him.

Gotta go with this.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, Pinterest and LinkedIn all ban Infowars same day. Also banned employees accounts and people who streamed their content. Also deleted ALL of his content like 1984 trying to wiping the existence of it.

Total coincidence and not selective censorship at all /sarcasm

Weak minded people want their corporate tech lords to think for them.

What will be next?

Or just maybe Alex Jones was a manipulative lying piece of shit that most people should know by now.

Also being a fucking nut case.
---

Womp womp
---

pauIie posted...

womps and prayers.

lol
---

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.
---

Funbazooka posted...

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.

families of the victims of sandy hook were being harassed and sent death threats and had to relocated and hide
---

Good. Dude is an extremist con artist who tries to scare people in order to sell his fake snake oil and exploit people while simultaneously encouraging them to be paranoid and apathetic towards actual problems.

Then whoever was harassing them and sending them death threats should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Then whoever was harassing them and sending them death threats should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

or they could just get rid of Alex Jones since they can and they are well within their rights to not enable him
---

catboy0_0 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.

families of the victims of sandy hook were being harassed and sent death threats and had to relocated and hide

This wasn't the given reason for his removal either (that he was responsible for the actions of those individuals). Facebook and YouTube's justification was because of hate-speech stuff in general. Same goes for Spotify.
---

Funbazooka posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.

families of the victims of sandy hook were being harassed and sent death threats and had to relocated and hide

This wasn't the given reason for his removal either (that he was responsible for the actions of those individuals). Facebook and YouTube's justification was because of hate-speech stuff in general. Same goes for Spotify.

And what is wrong with that? Do you feel those companies should be legally forced to publish all content submitted to them?

Well tbh, I'm kind of baffled at him being removed from Spotify. I mean isn't that just radio where you choose who and what you listen to?
---

catboy0_0 posted...

Well tbh, I'm kind of baffled at him being removed from Spotify. I mean isn't that just radio where you choose who and what you listen to?

Spotify has to actively approve what they host, they dont just broadcast everything. And when they yanked him, of course his supporters immediately cried "Free speech!", apparently not realizing that Spotify is a not only not a government agency and therefore not bound by the First Amendment, but a Swedish company to boot.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.

So you think that private publishing companies should be forced to publish any content that is presented to them?

*haven't read the topic*
Alex Jones is literally fake news and a legitmately abhorrent human being that uses tragedies to sell his garbage products for an overpriced rate for profit. That said, let him have some rope to tie his own noose. Banning him will only make him more popular among his ilk and the only people it turns off are those who never would've been turned off from his dumb ass to begin with because like I said both he, PJW, and any other of his writers regularly make shit up that if you're dumb enough to fall for, if you'll fall for that the you'll fall tor anything.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.

So you think that private publishing companies should be forced to publish any content that is presented to them?

Well, it's not the right description to call them private publishing companies. don't think I've ever heard of them being called that until now actually.

And they aren't forced to "publish" it. The user publishes it themselves through automatic means. These companies have to make more an effort to remove someone, particularly in this case where they all agreed with one another to remove him on the same day.

Except for Twitter, at least thus far.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.

When you:

- claim the Parkland shooting survivors are crisis actors
- claim that Sandy Hook didn't really happen and the kids weren't killed
- and threaten to kill a government employee (Robert Mueller)

That is hate speech. Your being unable to understand that in no way mitigates the fact.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.

So you think that private publishing companies should be forced to publish any content that is presented to them?

Well, it's not the right description to call them private publishing companies. don't think I've ever heard of them being called that until now actually.

And they aren't forced to "publish" it. The user publishes it themselves through automatic means. These companies have to make more an effort to remove someone, particularly in this case where they all agreed with one another to remove him on the same day.

Except for Twitter, at least thus far.

Then it's simply that you don't understand what these companies are. They are absolutely publishing content for users under the agreement that they have editorial oversight. It is on their servers, being published to the internet, under their brand.

I'm ok wirh this
---

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And what is wrong with that?

What the left-wing thinks constitutes hateful speech is often purely political with no evidence that harm or violation is being done and anything could be labeled hate-speech by them at the drop of a hat. All it takes for them to call something hate-speech is because they really disagree and can't handle the diversity of thought they're being exposed to. And left-wingers or "protected" classes on these sites are often not held to the same standards, no matter how absolutely nasty they are.

When you:

- claim the Parkland shooting survivors are crisis actors
- claim that Sandy Hook didn't really happen and the kids weren't killed
- and threaten to kill a government employee (Robert Mueller)

That is hate speech. Your being unable to understand that in no way mitigates the fact.

I don't believe personally the first two should be crimes but when he claim the last? Because inciting murder or violence period is a crime you'd be arrested for. When did he do that? I only remember him directly saying he didn't want him hurt because that'd make him a martyr or something to that dumb ass regard. Something about him trafficking kids or something. Blah blah blah. But honestly I want to know the people who supported Alex because it really helps me a lot to know who's a complete joke.
---

A problem arises because these companies have a natural monopoly going on. This could lead to government regulation, the government could have justification in stepping in on that basis.

I understood what you mean by publishing up to a point, I just think it gives people the wrong impression.

I mean, editorial oversight? YouTube itself does not edit videos. That would require a lot of effort, obviously. Restricting videos or temporarily removing videos is not editing. Nor is there a "branding". The videos users upload are only owned by that author, if it's original content of course. There's not a YouTube brand put on it because it isn't a product made by YouTube.

As I said before, the way the law works, YouTube is not held liable for someone's crazy conspiracy theory video that brings about a law suit against the creator. They're all fully aware of that.
---

Sandy Hook families have in fact filed lawsuits against Alex Jones for defamation. He's being held to account for this, in a court of law. No one else needs to step in to dole out some vigilante justice, so to speak.
---

Jimmy Dore of all people, a left-winger, formerly part of the Young Turks, hell he even SPAT his drink on Alex Jones in an all-around hilarious incident... is vehemently against his removal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_LlMmL6Ylk" data-time="
---

So why should Alex Jones breed of hate, lies and manipulation be allowed but not extremist filth? Both are deplorable, if one more so than the other, but both are just spewing out hatred and trying to manipulate people.
---

Funbazooka posted...

A problem arises because these companies have a natural monopoly going on. This could lead to government regulation, the government could have justification in stepping in on that basis.

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

Funbazooka posted...

I understood what you mean by publishing up to a point, I just think it gives people the wrong impression.

No, because publishing is exactly what it is.

Funbazooka posted...

I mean, editorial oversight? YouTube itself does not edit videos. That would require a lot of effort, obviously. Restricting videos or temporarily removing videos is not editing. Nor is there a "branding". The videos users upload are only owned by that author, if it's original content of course. There's not a YouTube brand put on it because it isn't a product made by YouTube.

I mean they reserve the right to remove (or 'unpublish') content if it doesn't meet their standards. I'm not talking about editing, I'm talking about removing content they don't want on their site.

Funbazooka posted...

As I said before, the way the law works, YouTube is not held liable for someone's crazy conspiracy theory video that brings about a law suit against the creator. They're all fully aware of that.

No one said they were liable. The point is not that they are afraid of getting blamed, the fact is that they don't want to publish the content and that's their prerogative (given that their reasons are, of course, not discriminatory).

It could be discussed back and forth ad nauseaum. All in all, we're in relatively new territory here. Alex Jones has effectively become a martyr, as much as that might engrage some to hear. It's far from being a settled issue, especially if you consider the possibility of Trump weighing in. There's hope.
---

Chad-Henne posted...

And nothing of value was lost

About time to ban this site and everyone on it then.
---

This is the Info War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b_eIJ5Ncwo" data-time="
---

Funbazooka posted...

This is the Info War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b_eIJ5Ncwo" data-time="

Looks like the opening to a Call of Duty game.
---

Looks around

Oh man, I lost the world's smallest violin!
---

CuckedWars
---

Maze_ posted...

VipaGTS posted...

lol @ calling him "Harmless"...he's injecting crazy conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric into a bunch of voting citizens. Its one thing to be a CNN and Fox News and report with a bias...what Alex Jones did was completely different.

Trump and Hiliary Clinton created more Hateful rhtetoric than Alex Jones did.

Bill Maher literally said he wanted Trump to tank the US economy so people suffer, just so he would be impeached (worse than anything I can remember Jones saying)

Mike Pence is pro gay conversion therapy.

James Gunn made fun of rape victims.

Should they all be banned too? You don't beat these opinions by banning them.

This.

Also, I'm no fan of Alex either, but he did speak out against kids being dressed as drag queens and then he was labelled as transphobic.

But dude has a point. What normal adult wants to see a bunch of 8 year old kids in drag??

Anyway, censoring him will just make him stronger. Go to CNN or Yahoo's new articles, most comments are basically saying "I don't care for the guy, but censorship isn't the right way to go about this". This is some 1984 type of stuff.

Womp womp
---

Every day that Alex Jones is allowed to publicly spout his bullshit is another day that reasonable people have to spend explaining that, actually, Sandy Hook happened. He is a drain on the public discourse and it will be healthier without him.
---

Antifar posted...

Fuck free thought and free speech

---

@HypnoCoosh posted...

@Antifar posted...

Fuck free thought and free speech

False statements of fact
Main article: False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9]

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14]

There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.

grow a brain

Because guess what? NEWS FLASH!!!!! there is no such thing as COMPLETE free speech, you can't spread lies and slander people
---

Funbazooka posted...

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.

If I could post emojis on my phone, I would post every variation of laughing ones that I had access to.
---

Funbazooka posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

How were they losing money by allowing Alex Jones to stay on? How was he a threat? Reminder that none of these companies are held liable for anything a user posts on their website. That's how the law works. And while the government didn't order the removal, that still doesn't mean it's acceptable. People need a Digital Bill of Rights to ensure their voice can be heard in the modern public square, since this is where much of the discourse is happening, and protections against this corporate trust who obviously coordinate the silencing of their political opposition.

families of the victims of sandy hook were being harassed and sent death threats and had to relocated and hide

This wasn't the given reason for his removal either (that he was responsible for the actions of those individuals). Facebook and YouTube's justification was because of hate-speech stuff in general. Same goes for Spotify.

And hate speech is illegal. Would you still be defending him if he posted other illegal shit, like say... child porn?
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Antifar posted...

Fuck free thought and free speech

HAH! Gotteeeeem
---