This Alex Jones Ban

I'm not an Alex Jones supporter at all. I don't listen to his bunk; nor do I listen to any of his far right wing contemporaries.

However, the few clips that I've seen of his antics lead me to believe that he is an entertainer and businessman. I've talked to a few people who listen to his work; and they are well aware of the fact that he is an entertainer. In other words, thinking people know the difference between his conspiracies and rants and reality.

It's bad enough when the government goes out of its way to become the nanny state. But when the Corporatocracy itself takes unilateral action to ban dissenting speech, I find that to be a bit more disconcerting. Businesses, even monopolies, are not as constrained at limiting dissenting voices as the government.

These businesses are well within their rights to remove all offending material from their websites. They "pay the bills," so to speak. However, they are also the corporate titans that control much of this type of social media. This unrestrained oligopoly has the power to shape the narrative, and limit the impact of dissenting voices.

When YouTube and Twitter initially began employing their "bot searching" algorithms, they marked several real contributors as disinformation robots. It became clear to me then that some "free speech" was going to be limited because the published material didn't comport with the proper narrative.

On the one hand, I'm in agreement with these businesses in wanting to protect their brand and not be associated with what they view as hate speech and hurtful conspiracy. I really don't like much, if anything, that these alternative "news and opinions sources" preach.

On the other hand, because of their prominent position in social networking media, I'm concerned that their business interests may trump my personal interests in being roundly informed about topics that interest me. Most people are more than capable of discerning truth from fiction.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

In the end it is the corporation's right to decide to host the content or not. Making the corporation host the content just opens up a whole can of worms that starts walking down the constitutionality path. So even if you don't like this decision you should still respect it at the end of the day. Also, this is no different than a website like ATS or reddit banning you for breaking their T&Cs.

It's just Capitalism....

Some companies threatened to stop advertising with FB and YT if they didn't pull AJ's videos. So to protect their bottom line, FB and YT acquiesced. Capitalism at it's finest....

Who here thinks the Fed Gov should interfere?

I can almost hear the gears of cognitive dissonance grinding away.

originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: redletter

Good points? Please, tell me some..

Alex Jones is no idiot. People like to portray him that way but he's not. He knows exactly what he's doing and it's disgusting. Screw that guy.

So you are happy others vet information from you on social media as some may not find it true. Do you think they should ban religion from social media too. Thats full of crap. Or most of the stuff on ATS or do you think you can make you own mind up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

In the end it is the corporation's right to decide to host the content or not. Making the corporation host the content just opens up a whole can of worms that starts walking down the constitutionality path. So even if you don't like this decision you should still respect it at the end of the day. Also, this is no different than a website like ATS or reddit banning you for breaking their T&Cs.

Yes in the age of corporate democracy you consider it wise to allow mega companies to be the bastions of information.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: redletter

Good points? Please, tell me some..

Alex Jones is no idiot. People like to portray him that way but he's not. He knows exactly what he's doing and it's disgusting. Screw that guy.

So you are happy others vet information from you on social media as some may not find it true. Do you think they should ban religion from social media too. Thats full of crap. Or most of the stuff on ATS or do you think you can make you own mind up.

What is your suggestion then? Should the government interfere with free market enterprise and force FB and YT to allow AJs videos? or does the Fed Gov simply allow them to run their business as they see fit?

What say you...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Please provide some proof of this statement ? I realize that this is likely the usual nonsense you spout but hey here's to hoping you actually made a factual statement for once.

I could step up here but i will not. People like to come on demanding proof of this or that. Use a search function. Do some research and add something of value to thread.

Here are a few ideas of for you.

What company is youtube part of.. (google)

Who owns google

What 3 letter US government agency works in close liason with google

How does this relationship work

There. now your some critical thought and do some research.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

hat is your suggestion then? Should the government interfere with free market enterprise and force FB and YT to allow AJs videos? or does the Fed Gov simply allow them to run their business as they see fit?

I think there first thing to understand is that you can no longer make the distinction between government and corporation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: notsure1

Ask Twitter, but the way I see it, Trump makes them too much money so they won't ban him any time soon.

Exactly.
There is #load of YouTubers who sphew same or even worse crap than AJ and their profiles havent nor won't be banned. Google, Apple and Facebook don't want their brands to be associated with this asshat. End of the story. Alex Jones is a brand, a very bad one since no one wants to publish his crap anymore. He can always find a platform that will or come up with a better idea to earn money.
AJ makes a living of being AJ. If YouTube, Facebook or Apple don't want to promote AJ so he can earn money of them than so be it. That's how capitalism works.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blarneystoner

hat is your suggestion then? Should the government interfere with free market enterprise and force FB and YT to allow AJs videos? or does the Fed Gov simply allow them to run their business as they see fit?

I think there first thing to understand is that you can no longer make the distinction between government and corporation.

You didn't answer the question.

And do you believe Trump when he says that "fake news" should be banned?

“Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?” ~ Trump

I'm really curious to know how Conservatives can reconcile the belief that Alex Jones shouldn't be banned but "corrupt reporters" should have credentials taken away.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

In the end it is the corporation's right to decide to host the content or not. Making the corporation host the content just opens up a whole can of worms that starts walking down the constitutionality path. So even if you don't like this decision you should still respect it at the end of the day. Also, this is no different than a website like ATS or reddit banning you for breaking their T&Cs.

Yes in the age of corporate democracy you consider it wise to allow mega companies to be the bastions of information.

If following the Constitution is so bothersome for you, what would you have done instead? Have the government force Apple and Facebook to carry Aj's podcasts?

a reply to: Blarneystoner

You didn't answer the question. And do you believe Trump when he says that "fake news" should be banned? “Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?” ~ Trump I'm really curious to know how Conservatives can reconcile the belief that Alex Jones shouldn't be banned but "corrupt reporters" should have credentials taken away.

Really not sure what you are harping on about. Do not make the asumption that I am a conservative. I dont buy into that left / right blull#.

I think people should be able to make there own minds up about information. The television is full of fake news. The problem the powers that be have with the Internet is that some of the fake news is no longer theres and does not fit a particular agenda.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

f following the Constitution is so bothersome for you, what would you have done instead? Have the government force Apple and Facebook to carry Aj's podcasts?

As I said there is no difference to the government and these companies. The door revolves both ways. If you want to endorse government censorship. Go for it.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blarneystoner

You didn't answer the question. And do you believe Trump when he says that "fake news" should be banned? “Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?” ~ Trump I'm really curious to know how Conservatives can reconcile the belief that Alex Jones shouldn't be banned but "corrupt reporters" should have credentials taken away.

Really not sure what you are harping on about. Do not make the asumption that I am a conservative. I dont buy into that left / right blull#.

I think people should be able to make there own minds up about information. The television is full of fake news. The problem the powers that be have with the Internet is that some of the fake news is no longer theres and does not fit a particular agenda.

I have made no assumptions...

and you still haven't answered the question.... "what would you suggest?"

Becasue YOU"RE the one harping on about censorship, Ad nauseam. So, PLEEEEAASE tell us what you think should be done.... please...

a reply to: Blarneystoner

I have made no assumptions... and you still haven't answered the question.... "what would you suggest?" Becasue YOU"RE the one harping on about censorship, Ad nauseam. So, PLEEEEAASE tell us what you think should be done.... please...

Please read back through my replies and note that I am not suggesting anything. I am simply calling it out for what it is. It is happening in lots of countries in different ways. Its the control of Internet information by the Powers that Be.

What you choose to do about that is entirely you own decision.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

In the end it is the corporation's right to decide to host the content or not. Making the corporation host the content just opens up a whole can of worms that starts walking down the constitutionality path. So even if you don't like this decision you should still respect it at the end of the day. Also, this is no different than a website like ATS or reddit banning you for breaking their T&Cs.

Yes in the age of corporate democracy you consider it wise to allow mega companies to be the bastions of information.

But no one is controlling information. It is impossible to control information today except if you live in North Korea. There are plenty of YouTubers who sphew far worse crap than AJ and who haven't nor will be banned. You can still get your daily fix of alt-right fan fiction both on YouTube and Facebook. AJ can still sell hot air on infowars etc. etc.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

f following the Constitution is so bothersome for you, what would you have done instead? Have the government force Apple and Facebook to carry Aj's podcasts?

As I said there is no difference to the government and these companies. The door revolves both ways. If you want to endorse government censorship. Go for it.

Uh... Yes there is a BIG difference between the government and those companies. I vote to put people in charge of the government and they are supposed to be beholden to me and the citizenry of the country. A company is beholden to its shareholders. Making a false equivalency then using that to say I support government censorship is a complete strawman.

originally posted by: RMFX1
Sandy Hook.

It's justified on that alone.

And Sandy Hook was how many years ago? If they are banning him for that, it should have happened then. To wait this long for it argues there is another motive at work.

If they really cared all that much about what he said about Sandy Hook, then they would have dropped the ban hammer then.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

But no one is controlling information. It is impossible to control information today except if you live in North Korea. There are plenty of YouTubers who sphew far worse crap than AJ and who haven't nor will be banned. You can still get your daily fix of alt-right fan fiction both on YouTube and Facebook. AJ can still sell hot air on infowars etc. etc.

Yes infromation is fully controled. I have watched subject wiped from the internet. What do you think your countries firewall does.

I will give you an example and leave the rest upto you. When the big oil spill occured in the golf of mexico. Back in 2010. Search results where bought up by companines and controlled by government to allow only certain aspects and news of the spill to be shared.

Who controls the algorithms that fund your information. Why out of all the total infromation is most of it hidden away so deep down you will never find it.

Those that control the infromation portals control the opinion of the masses. Its the same thing that was done with the news papers and the television. When the internet first came out there was an element of freedom. That is now gone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Uh... Yes there is a BIG difference between the government and those companies. I vote to put people in charge of the government and they are supposed to be beholden to me and the citizenry of the country. A company is beholden to its shareholders

You are living in a corporate dictatorship. If you do not want to lift the veil and see it for what it is that is your choice. I understand.