InfoWars Banned from Facebook and iTunes

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Who said they didn't have the right too as a private corporation? What I'm saying this is a slippery slope with censorship that the people should not be supporting. Are you forced to watch infocrap when you log into your apple device?

I don't use Apple products because, *GASP* I don't like the company! But hey, I still manage to be pretty well informed if I do say so myself.

And no, this is not a slippery slope to dystopian censorship. Alex Jones STILL has an outlet to spread his lies opinion. Large parts of Europe have banned hate speech, like government banned hate speech, and there isn't a dystopia over there. This is just a company acting within its rights but you guys are hijacking to complain about free speech being infringed.

I'm pretty sure you have never lived in communist dictatorship where everything you heard was controlled and you feared to share anything with family or friends due to repercussions. This doesn't happen overnight it is slowly implemented. I have lived in that crap.

I'm pretty sure that is irrelevant as your fear story doesn't magically make this situation a valid slippery slope to dystopia.

Censorship leads to manipulation of society. Do you honestly think it will stop here with infowars or facebook and itunes?

I honestly don't care what any of those companies do with their content. I can be informed without any of them. They don't control the flow of ideas, and the government isn't censoring speech. I see NOTHING to be alarmed about here.

I always am amused that the same people who rail against news sources like CNN for being fake stand up for Alex Jones.

And then these same people will go on another thread and insult people for not doing their own research, and then come on a thread like this and yell "prove it" when it literally takes 2 min to figure it out on their own

Its like a freaking disability or something

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

Again, I said I personally don't see it as crossing a line, but in today's political climate, I think that directive would lead to harassment. Whether that was her intentions or not.

Just an opinion, and I'm sure you can tell I'm not outraged by what she said, just calling it how I see it. Not to say that's how it is.

Sure. I can see how it could lead to harassment, but that seems to be a slippery slope.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Furthermore I also think its good for society when idiots like infowars have their ideas out there for all to see, it shows how out of touch they really are

I am kinda like you in being on the fence on this. Yea, its censorship. But as far as your comment above? Sorta points out, once again, your outa touch with reality in the US. The reason its probably best to censor Jones and the like off popular social media platforms is that unbeknownst to you, the sum total of "stupid" in the US is far higher than you would ever imagine. There is a significantly sizeable portion of the society that actually believes everything Jones says. Allowing his publication on social media platforms serves to lend legitimacy to his views.

Oh, and BTW, I don't make this stuff up.
brandongaille.com...

Check that out and you'll see that the US doesn't even make the top 20 countries so, coming from a higher average IQ country, your misunderstanding of the situation in the US is quite forgivable. You simply aren't surrounded by the sheer quantity of "dumb" that we are in the US.

There's an interesting IQ map at the site as well. However, upon close examination the map data seems to conflict with the "list" data. A look at that map goes a long way to explain the problem in the US can only worsen because of the US "Open Borders" policy, the country has taken in millions of immigrants from far lower IQ countries, Mexico 85 Avg. IQ, and Central America, Avg. IQ of 80.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.

Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.

Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?

originally posted by: SailorJerry
I always am amused that the same people who rail against news sources like CNN for being fake stand up for Alex Jones.

And then these same people will go on another thread and insult people for not doing their own research, and then come on a thread like this and yell "prove it" when it literally takes 2 min to figure it out on their own

Its like a freaking disability or something

I respect and stand up for Jones' right to free speech, but I also stand for the rights of private companies to do with their property as they see fit, as long as the rights of other's are not violated.

What I do not understand is the outrage people have over false equivalencies.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Yes, its only a matter of time . The MSM has been completely agenda driven and controlled by the gov't and mega corporations.

The Internet came along and the people grew a voice and pointed out their propaganda. This is a two step process to FULLY get back control from the Internet.

1. Repealing net neutrality (NN):

Since NN has been repealed it will only be a matter of time before they block access to infowar or other sites they deem unfriendly. ATS no doubt will likely be on the list if it goes against the mainstream agenda.



2. Social media content control:

The problem with net neutrality is that it will block access to sites directly not inside content.So they can't simply restrict access to Facebook and other mega corporation propagandist . Instead they pick and choose what you can read,hear, and watch inside their own ecosystem.



End result by using anti net neutrality principles and blocking content inside their ecosystem they get back that complete control they previously had with the MSM and prior traditional mediums such as paper,radio,tv.etc.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
...is this really censorship?

Sure it is but that's their right. They aren't covered by the 1st. They could censor Muppet shows if they like.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: SailorJerry
I always am amused that the same people who rail against news sources like CNN for being fake stand up for Alex Jones.

And then these same people will go on another thread and insult people for not doing their own research, and then come on a thread like this and yell "prove it" when it literally takes 2 min to figure it out on their own

Its like a freaking disability or something

I respect and stand up for Jones' right to free speech, but I also stand for the rights of private companies to do with their property as they see fit, as long as the rights of other's are not violated.

What I do not understand is the outrage people have over false equivalencies.

Because they know they are being hypocrites and they have ti try and invent a way to justify being a hypocrite

I'm an extremely conservative person but in no way do I condone hate speech, or fake/false news from any source.

That goes for Jones, CNN, fox news, or anyone else

I'm also for private business and if they choose not to carry that message from that source that's their choice.

Anyone bucking this is being wildly inconsistent and hypocritical because its "their guy"

People need to start having some damn back bone and stand for principles instead of party

InfoWars has been banned, but the fact that Occupy Democrats and The Other 98% CONTINUES to exist is proof of one hell of a double standard.

a reply to: interupt42

Your argument fails the smell test. Apple is pro-net neutrality

Also, so are Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter.

originally posted by: dothedew
InfoWars has been banned, but the fact that Occupy Democrats and The Other 98% CONTINUES to exist is proof of one hell of a double standard.

It's only a double standard if those groups you mentioned have done something similar to that of Jones.

Otherwise, it's a false equivalence.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

There is a time and place, while they are out with there families is neither the time nor place.

Same with any professional etiquette, people don't berate people they do business with while they are off the clock and with their families.

Here's the scenario: a grown man wearing a Trump Pence 2020 shirt with INFOWARS across the back and on the sleeve comes into a local small retail outlet with his baby daughter. Early afternoon. He starts talking at other customers about Trump and Pence, and repeating all of Jones' inflammatory speech. As he moves along, he shouts out, "Yeah, I'm doing it for my kids!" and punches the air.

He's obviously looking for someone to give him a hard time.

No one takes the bait. So he insults an employee and when he gets a raised eyebrow he tries to start an argument with the cashier, just out of pent up rage, and then complains to the manager outside that the cashier was rude to him.

THAT is what Jones creates. And later that day I went home and investigated Jones' latest - he is telling people "this is a civil war, folks. We are in, right now, a civil war." He has pictures of Trump-shirt people with bloody noses, torn shirts, etc. He keeps a running slide show of all the "assaulted" Trump supporters. Reality is they were Deliberately Provoking people - total strangers - trying to get under their skin, and when they succeed at pissing them off to the point of physical altercation they blame the victim they accosted.

Like a political version of knock-out. Kinda.

It's embarrassing for the United States. In my opinion.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.

Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.

Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?

Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.

a reply to: SailorJerry

I always am amused that the same people who rail against news sources like CNN for being fake stand up for Alex Jones.

That being the case, Alex J will be welcomed at ATS with open arms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And no, this is not a slippery slope to dystopian censorship. Alex Jones STILL has an outlet to spread his lies opinion. e.

See my post above. he has an outlet for NOW, but with net neutrality they can cut off his access legally at anytime.

Large parts of Europe have banned hate speech, like government banned hate speech, and there isn't a dystopia over ther

Perhaps you don't understand Machiavellian tactics? Again this is something that is not done overnight and nobody is saying its going to lead to a dystopian society. It will lead to the manipulation of the people without them even knowing it.

They don't control the flow of ideas, and the government isn't censoring speech. I see NOTHING to be alarmed about here.

So you supported and are for the Republicans and their anti neutrality bill I suppose?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Don't forget, Apple and Facebook have other advertisers. And they listen to their customers AND their other advertisers. Alex went too far, and he's now blackballed. He's not a king. Neither is Trump.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.

Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.

Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?

Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.

So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?

a reply to: introvert

Well, the hatred, race-baiting, nonsensical rants, name-calling, conspiracy theory touting, violence inciting, BS is about equal for the three.

I will concede, however, that TO98 and OD have never once claimed that chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

So I'll give them that.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.

Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.

Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?

Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.

So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?

Freedom. Free expression. Anything less is censorship.


Now you may not like the term, but if you are supporting it, might as well embrace it.