InfoWars Videos Banned By YouTube

a reply to: Deplorable

Can I just point out that there is something fundamentally wrong with trying to support Infowars, while using terms like "Fake News" to attack its detractors and opposition. Infowars's output is demonstrably FULL of false information, lies, propagandism, and its host not only denies science, but peddles fake medicines and nutritional aids. Frankly, the brass neck that one would have to have to accuse anyone of faking information, while holding up Alex Jones and Infowars as exemplars of truth, is the only noteworthy thing about this thread so far.

Just ridiculous nonsense from you. I would say keep it up for the amusement value, but really and honestly, just stop it. You are fooling NOBODY.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Deplorable
Just ridiculous nonsense from you. I would say keep it up for the amusement value, but really and honestly, just stop it. You are fooling NOBODY.

TrueBrit, you're quite an accomplished writer on these boards. I'll give you that.

But, do you comprehend what other lesser individuals are trying to get across? Or, do you just use your talents to go after those you disagree with?

Please, Sir, show me where I have ever promoted Alex Jones' opinions or those of InfoWars. What we're talking about here is censorship, and a type of censorship that's frightening. ATS is quite a platform for you to use to openly and anonymously express yourself to an audience of folks who listen to and comment on the aspects and angles of any topics. How would you feel if the Mods began to selectively control what you were allowed to bring to the boards?

Do you still find what I have to say ridiculous? Please limit your response to that one word: ridiculous.

Infowars wasn't banned nor was the channel deactivated. They had a video removed and received a strike against their account.

Three strikes in a given period can result in a channel being suspended.

But more to the point here...

This is nothing new nor is it, as I often see, some crusade against conservative voices. I can offer a laundry list of left leaning Youtube channels that have seen their monetization gutted, videos hidden from search results, videos removed for a variety of seemingly trivial issues and even one that has entirely been removed from YouTubes search results entirely - the only way to find it is to directly type the channel name into the URL bar.

For that matter I can also point to a plethora of gaming, tech and social commentary channels that have experienced similar difficulties.

While I disagree with a lot to do with YouTube and their policies... It's honestly got nothing to do with Alex Jones specifically and everything to do with the fact that advertisers have abandoned the platform in mass twice in the past year and YouTube is responding to those events by becoming overly censorious regarding content - all content.

How anyone believes a word Alex Jones says is beyond me.

In a court of law, he testified he smokes marijuana "once a year to see how Soros is making it more potent."

In the same testimony, when Alex Jones couldn't remember the name of his daughters school teacher, Alex Jones gave the excuse of "I had a big bowl of chili for lunch."

Alex Jones, ranging from Y2K to Obama's third term, to FEMA camps, all of it was a lie.

Alex Jones claiming Carrie Fischer had been murdered by the Illuminati star killers. Alex Jones claiming Far Cry 5 is racist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-Christain propaganda. That Black Panther is anti-white, anti-American, anti-business SJW propaganda.

Oh.... wait. It's really not hard to see why people adore him. This is ATS, after all.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Alex Jones is a genius to be able to turn total bull sh1t into media gold. Create an empire with nothing more than a surreal persona aimed at the uber gullible neck beards.

If you can't tell that it's all a big circus fueled by Strawberry True Caveman Paleo Formula, then could I interest you in a ford Pinto, runs great and good tires.


www.infowarsstore.com...

a reply to: Deplorable

Well heres the thing Deplorable...

First, you can dance around the issue all you like, but if you had a problem with Infowars, you would not be using the situation with their videos as evidence of anything, and you are currently using the situation with their videos to suggest that YouTube are over stepping the mark.

Now, clearly, no, YouTube are not overstepping the mark here at all. Its a privately owned platform, and they are under no obligation to avoid censorship if they do not want to. If they want to place rules and regs for the use of their site, between a creator and their audience, then they have the right to do that, and no one can tell them otherwise, because its a private site. The GOVERNMENT must permit freedom of speech, but private companies are under no such obligation and probably never will be.

YouTube, if it were engaged in FRIGHTENING levels of censorship, would be a far emptier place now, than it is.

And as for moderation here on ATS... I have had my share of moments where I have simply not posted something, because I am aware that doing so violates the terms and conditions of the site in some way. I think everyone around here has had that happen at some stage. I accept that this is a privately owned concern, this is not my living room, my personal pulpit. In order to remain operational, this site has to perform the functions required of it by its ownership, and they make the rules. I am on their patch, so the rules they make are the ones I follow. As for limiting my responses, there is no reason, according to the terms and conditions of the site, or the rules of polite conversation, why I ought to do any such thing.

Your use of InfoWars to make a point about YouTube IS ridiculous, it will remain ridiculous until the end of time. When you can go out and find a channel which is not a propagandist piece of trash, whose output is not designed to divide nations and make people dumber, which has received the same treatment as InfoWars channel has, THEN you will have a point.

When Kathy Griffin displayed the severed head of Trump, I was one of the few who defended her right to expression and decried censorship of the photo.

I see too many here that do not appear to be consistent with the ideas of free expression and censorship.

This is my "surprised" face.

a reply to: TrueBrit


That was certainly a lot of words you used to say that you are perfectly fine with censorship of what you don't approve of and consider "wrongthink". Oh well, you'll just have to hope that YOUR opinions and way of thinking won't be labeled unacceptable "wrongthink" one day too.


Best of luck.

a reply to: DBCowboy

DBCowboy,

Theres a marked difference here. First of all, Kathy Griffin placed that photograph on her social media, and the social media company she was using the product of, had the same exact right to turn around and say "You know what, with the best will in the world, we don't want that here", that YouTube has to say the same of any video, or any channel on their platform.

What you have to understand is that private companies do not actually have any obligation to avoid picking and choosing what can, and what cannot be broadcast from their platform. Only the government are under ANY obligation to ensure freedom of speech, but private companies are not. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, none of these platforms are under any legal obligation to permit people to say what they like, and do what they like from the platform.

Now, do I like that they have the option to remove content which breaks no laws? No. Do I like that they often de-monetise channels for promoting content that the central command of the company do not agree with? Of course not. Its damaged some of my favourite channels, including Forgotten Weapons and InRangeTV (channels I enjoy because of the enthusiasm of the hosts, and the engineering aspects of what they are often talking about), Skallagrim, and many others besides. Hell, aVe, which is a great little channel that I highly recommend, get demonetised for poor language... LANGUAGE! A bit of CUSSING! Terrible!

But do I agree that YouTube as a site, has no obligation whatsoever, to provide a free speech platform, without censorship. The government may not clamp down on freedom of speech, but there are no laws whatsoever, preventing a privately owned business, from formulating and enforcing its own terms and conditions, and that is how ALL service provision works on the internet. The only question is, does the platform you are using have the reach and the freedom of speech necessary to be useful to you as a communicator, or not.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deplorable

Censorship is a weapon of cowards and tyrants.

Right you are, and it is standard fare in the US of A today.

www.globalresearch.ca...

In the century since Bernays was hired, the US and others have raised it to an artform.

a reply to: TrueBrit


While no private company has the obligation to provide an open forum to everyone all the time, it is clear that censorship exists.

Regardless of the reasons.

Censorship is never right.

It is another entity determining what you or I can see, read, watch.

It is inherently anti-freedom.

Justifying it, does no purpose other than encouraging others to do the same.

a reply to: DBCowboy

DBCowboy, the problem is that those platforms are the property of private entities. If they weren't you could make reasonable complaint and actually have it mean something.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DBCowboy

DBCowboy, the problem is that those platforms are the property of private entities. If they weren't you could make reasonable complaint and actually have it mean something.

I have no problem criticizing private entities of censorship.

I believe they are doing much of it for political reasons. They are doing it by proxy so government can keep it's hands clean.

a reply to: Deplorable

Well Alex Jones has clearly lost his marbles-he has offered a million dollars for the return of said marbles.

Joking aside he can't be pulled from youtube, Just like those who post videos with the title OMG REAL 100 PERCENT FOOTAGE OF A GHOST, TOATALLY REAL! even though it's BS.

CNN can't do a thing to stop Jones, he will unravel himself so why the attack?

a reply to: Hefficide

Except CNN are actively involved in orchestrating them being taken down.

Strange how that fails to be seen on certain radars.

edition.cnn.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
When Kathy Griffin displayed the severed head of Trump, I was one of the few who defended her right to expression and decried censorship of the photo.

I see too many here that do not appear to be consistent with the ideas of free expression and censorship.

This is my "surprised" face.

It's Alex Jones.. the man I used to lambaste for being noise... but when you listen to what is being said in between the rants, there is substance to his stuff.

but he's Alex Jones.. and well, goes against the grain. So an easy target for those who cry foul one day, and suck up the next against the mainstream media.

a reply to: DBCowboy

YOUtube needs to change their name to USONLYtube.

and they've changed, as was mentioned, to demonetise a whole range of people who were lured into their snare.

I wonder what changed.... don't be evil, has become, we'll do what we want.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DBCowboy

DBCowboy, the problem is that those platforms are the property of private entities. If they weren't you could make reasonable complaint and actually have it mean something.

I have no problem criticizing private entities of censorship.

I believe they are doing much of it for political reasons. They are doing it by proxy so government can keep it's hands clean.

And yet here you are abiding to the T&C censorship model on a private enterprise website. Tell it to the 3 amigos and see what happens. Political or just business as usual?

this is my I'm not surprised face

I have never actually seen a single Jones' video or radio show, so I need to put this in the who cares file...

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: DBCowboy

YOUtube needs to change their name to USONLYtube.

and they've changed, as was mentioned, to demonetise a whole range of people who were lured into their snare.

I wonder what changed.... don't be evil, has become, we'll do what we want.

That's the thing.

If I had a website catering to the making of soft toys for children under the age of 5, I would not allow photos of gay men having sex with dead alligators.

That's not censorship.

Censorship is having a site dedicated to the free flow of ideas and banning those who have different ideas.