This Alex Jones Ban

Who thought the revolution would go libertarian, and won't be "televised".

And yeah, those streaming channels are my television, because mostly real television these days is unwatchable.

Going down the same tube, now that the leftists have the fascist power?

a reply to: purplemer

If you are going to make a claim that companies (in this case, Apple and Facebook) are in bed with the government then I expect you to prove that statement. Also, Trump and the Republicans are in charge of the government, so if they are in bed with the government they are in bed with the Trump and Republican led government. That is just simple logic and debate procedures.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: PillarOfFire

I find it troubling that people can't see the bigger picture of it. Facebook corners the market then Twitter then linked in, then pretty soon they start banning people with different opinions and after that's in effect they all start working together buy up whatever they can till one day comes when no one can say what they want because, those guys own it after all. No where left for free speech to go, then in 10 years it starts looking like China and Saudi Arabia and Iran. See what happens when Conglomerates take over?

Yes and that is where we are already. Google is controlled along with the other big social medias and search engines. Anytopic can by scrubbed from the clearnet at will.

As I have said above this is the corporate dictatorship in which we live.

These Large Company's sway the masses to their rhetoric. Take FB as an example of that when they experimented on peoples emotions for months. Some people became severely depressed based on the ads shown them as appozed to the other half who were shown positives.

a reply to: DexterRiley

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

You live in a nation where the portals of speech are owned by private companies. Now if this is the case you are advocating the control of free speach by a choosen few.

and therin lies your corporate dictatorship. This is not something I personally endorse. I think all should be allowed portals of free speech. But the world is made of all sorts.

a reply to: PillarOfFire

These Large Company's sway the masses to their rhetoric. Take FB as an example of that when they experimented on peoples emotions for months. Some people became severely depressed based on the ads shown them as appozed to the other half who were shown positives.

Yes and who really controls those buttons. Its no different to the news papers and television. Its used as a tool of mass propaganda and people are supporting and endorsing this type of behavior.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DexterRiley

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

You live in a nation where the portals of speech are owned by private companies. Now if this is the case you are advocating the control of free speach by a choosen few.

and therin lies your corporate dictatorship. This is not something I personally endorse. I think all should be allowed portals of free speech. But the world is made of all sorts.

"Freedom of Speech" simply means the government can't prosecute you for what you say... although there are exceptions.

It doesn't mean that everyone has a right to voice their opinion without retribution and public ridicule. It doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a "platform" to voice your opinions on either. It doesn't mean that your opinion holds the same weight as others. It doesn't mean that no matter what you say, you can't be denied the normal platforms that people currently use for social interaction.

What you say has consequences... that's the bottom line.

And let's not forget that no one is being forced to use Facebook, Youtube, or any other social media site...

When you say... "I think all should be allowed portals of free speech." It makes no sense unless you're advocating for a "public" portal... because FB, YT, Twitter, et all are not public in the sense that they not socialist, government run social media sites.

originally posted by: PillarOfFire

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: PillarOfFire

I find it troubling that people can't see the bigger picture of it. Facebook corners the market then Twitter then linked in, then pretty soon they start banning people with different opinions and after that's in effect they all start working together buy up whatever they can till one day comes when no one can say what they want because, those guys own it after all. No where left for free speech to go, then in 10 years it starts looking like China and Saudi Arabia and Iran. See what happens when Conglomerates take over?

Yes and that is where we are already. Google is controlled along with the other big social medias and search engines. Anytopic can by scrubbed from the clearnet at will.

As I have said above this is the corporate dictatorship in which we live.

These Large Company's sway the masses to their rhetoric. Take FB as an example of that when they experimented on peoples emotions for months. Some people became severely depressed based on the ads shown them as appozed to the other half who were shown positives.

Someone forced those people to use Facebook?

Outrageous.....

a reply to: Blarneystoner

Manipulating and lying is what FB did to its users. Pretty sure a mgority of the people affected don't frequent FB anymore. The only ones that can stretch the truth lie and manipulate people are FB I guess right?

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DexterRiley

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

You live in a nation where the portals of speech are owned by private companies. Now if this is the case you are advocating the control of free speach by a choosen few.

and therin lies your corporate dictatorship. This is not something I personally endorse. I think all should be allowed portals of free speech. But the world is made of all sorts.

"Freedom of Speech" simply means the government can't prosecute you for what you say... although there are exceptions.

It doesn't mean that everyone has a right to voice their opinion without retribution and public ridicule. It doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a "platform" to voice your opinions on either. It doesn't mean that your opinion holds the same weight as others. It doesn't mean that no matter what you say, you can't be denied the normal platforms that people currently use for social interaction.

What you say has consequences... that's the bottom line.

And let's not forget that no one is being forced to use Facebook, Youtube, or any other social media site...

When you say... "I think all should be allowed portals of free speech." It makes no sense unless you're advocating for a "public" portal... because FB, YT, Twitter, et all are not public in the sense that they not socialist, government run social media sites.

Yep. This.

AJ is free to say whatever he likes, and if he says something that upsets FB or YT, they can shut him down. He can still talk just as loud as he did before, but now, he will not be able to on those platforms. I think his lawyer said it best:

“No reasonable reader or listener would interpret Mr. Jones’ statements regarding the possibility of a ‘blue-screen’ being used as a verifiably false statement of fact, and even if it is verifiable as false, the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions ‘masquerading as a fact.'”

www.texasmonthly.com...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DexterRiley

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

You live in a nation where the portals of speech are owned by private companies. Now if this is the case you are advocating the control of free speach by a choosen few.

and therin lies your corporate dictatorship. This is not something I personally endorse. I think all should be allowed portals of free speech. But the world is made of all sorts.

And therein lies the rub, or the sticky wicket as some may say.

Ideally, a real "free market" should respond to a variety of capitalist forces. Supply and demand, as well as customer choice come to mind here. However, when a monopoly, or a series of cooperating monopolies, control those forces and limit choice, the free market system begins to fail. That's partly the problem here.

On the other hand, our government has demonstrated time and time again that it is rather inept at properly regulating these entities; especially businesses that are primarily Internet facing. If the US government were to attempt to control "free speech" with respect to these corporations, it would likely take a whole new government agency with a billion $ dollar yearly budget.

So, for now, I'll take the lesser of two evils and hope that the magic of unmolested capitalism will eventually prevail.


-dex

a reply to: Blarneystoner

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

Credentials, now there is a word for you.

Credence

Cred,the quality of being believable or worthy of respect, especially within a particular social, professional, or other group:

Credibility ,
the quality or power of inspiring belief

AH, freedom, it is an illusion.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Blarneystoner

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

Credentials, now there is a word for you.

Credence

Cred,the quality of being believable or worthy of respect, especially within a particular social, professional, or other group:

Credibility ,
the quality or power of inspiring belief

AH, freedom, it is an illusion.

Yeah... nice etymology lesson.... but you and I both know that Trump was talking about Press Credentials which allows for access to events like White House Press briefings... etc...

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DexterRiley

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

You live in a nation where the portals of speech are owned by private companies. Now if this is the case you are advocating the control of free speach by a choosen few.

and therin lies your corporate dictatorship. This is not something I personally endorse. I think all should be allowed portals of free speech. But the world is made of all sorts.

And therein lies the rub, or the sticky wicket as some may say.

Ideally, a real "free market" should respond to a variety of capitalist forces. Supply and demand, as well as customer choice come to mind here. However, when a monopoly, or a series of cooperating monopolies, control those forces and limit choice, the free market system begins to fail. That's partly the problem here.

On the other hand, our government has demonstrated time and time again that it is rather inept at properly regulating these entities; especially businesses that are primarily Internet facing. If the US government were to attempt to control "free speech" with respect to these corporations, it would likely take a whole new government agency with a billion $ dollar yearly budget.

So, for now, I'll take the lesser of two evils and hope that the magic of unmolested capitalism will eventually prevail.

-dex

Capitalism is like sports without the end of the game.

At some point these corporations should be deemed winners,givin a trophy and put back on the bus to relax and enjoy their victory without the continuation of scoring on the losers.

Would one want to be fed by a corrupt media?

Why yes, yes they would.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

We have to wonder why some cling so desperately to lies and distortions, and what it is they really are trying to hide.

I have never seen so much desperation in my life.

Something wicked is under the sun.

a reply to: purplemer

So that's a no then, you can't provide proof either you just write some crap about critical thinking and 3 letter agencies, nobody is stopping you getting your news from Alex Jones or Q for that matter are they?

a reply to: notsure1

That is ridiculous he was banned for numerous violations of the community standards ie hate speech involvint muslims and transgendered people.

Who is willing to tell the truth, no matter what the cost?
Better yet who is willing to accept it when they hear it?

What makes people willing to believe a lie?

What are we afraid of?

Just thinking.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: notsure1

That is ridiculous he was banned for numerous violations of the community standards ie hate speech involvint muslims and transgendered people.

AJ makes me cringe, but sometimes he is right.

I hate listening to Trump, but sometimes regarding certain issues, he is doing what is best for the country.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

We live in an age of deception, it's very difficult to sift through all the crap and find truth, and I bet for many truth is somewhat subjective . So people believe lies because to them it's truth, Carlin was right everything is backwards...