This Alex Jones Ban

originally posted by: redletter
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

He needs to change. As do most of us in some way or another.

Everyone needs to think how They tell us to think, think only about what They say to think about, be like They say we should be, dress like They say we should, and just follow the Two Party + MSM + IC Systems' official narratives and marching orders at every juncture.

a reply to: Subrosabelow

I looked at that SGT Report link. That was some doomsday stuff. The intro video makes it look like were headed for another great depression.

One thing I was thinking about when I made that post is who's next. Twitter and Facebook like to go after conservative politicians but they all love to target these news and commentary sites. There's a number of articles suggesting FOX news. As far as I know, You Tube hasn't banned any of their videos and also FOX might possibly be taken over by Disney. So, we'll see.

This is speculation but I am thinking the next big target will be the NRA. There's a serious campaign going on now against their financial services. Their bank accounts, insurance, credit card services, and many other financial arrangements are getting cut off. They are blacklisted like they are the Daily Stormer of organizations

NRA Says It Faces A Financial Crisis In Lawsuit Against New York State Officials .
NRA lawsuit says it's in financial trouble because of actions by New York regulators

Really, these problems began after Wayne LaPierre gave a speech at CPAC about European style socialists.

The anti gun people would love to see them deplatformed.

a reply to: purplemer

I am not replying to any particular post you made. Mostly I agree with all you've said here and I think you are doing a good job explaining your position. You are more patient than I am but I think no matter how you describe this, many of these people will never accept it. It goes against their own agenda. Maybe it will help them in the future.

These large tech companies have formed a de facto cartel. They have been doing it since the 80's to make marketing decisions and set standards for their industry and the internet. Now they are doing it with politics. This is proven by the way they all act simultaneously. I expect the next phase will be financial. If he does not submit, he will lose his insurance, credit card processing, bank affiliations, pay pal, and be generally blacklisted. If this isn't enough, he will lose his domains and get booted off the internet altogether.

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

This seems to be the prevailing theme across all of these Alex Jones threads. I agree they are within their rights to terminate if they can demonstrate he violated the TOS. If there is something wrong with the TOS, he can sue them.

As for all those other rationalizations like they are a private company so they can just do what they want, no.

They are a private company but they are offering a public service. They are obligated to provide to everyone unless they have a good reason otherwise. This is intensified when they achieve monopoly status. An electric company can't cut off your electric because they don't like you. This is because they are regulated as a public utility. This will happen to the internet if this type of thing continues. We have come close to this already.

originally posted by: notsure1
Alex Jones was banned because he is a Trump supporter..

Period.. No other reason no matter what they tell us..

I'm not so sure Alex Jones is a Trump supporter. To me, people like Alex Jones lose a ton of credibility when they support anyone. A professional skeptic who has officially taken sides is no longer skeptical. Anyone who expects me to "question everything" SHOULD BE questioning the hell out of this whole Trump thing. There is something very suspicious about it all.

Alex Jones is no loss. I mean, it's not like he ever had a ton of credibility anyway. When he started supporting Trump, I became even a lot more suspicious of him than I was all along. And I always was suspicious of him.

My only question is why now? Well actually not my only question because not only why now but why several platforms at the same time? He's been around forever and haven't heard of him doing anything much more outlandish or threatening than he has done in the past. Was it a snowball effect where one platform done it, then others followed suite? Or a coordinated effort with more to come? I believe so, and that this is just the beginning. I guess we will see. Maybe once they ban someone more ATS members agree with and deem credible, then we will have our outrage. Everyone who says these are companies and have every right to ban whoever they want are correct, but has to make you wonder why he was OK for the platforms for so long, until one day he suddenly wasn't.

It's funny how these organizations colluded against Alex. I don't like many things he says but I support his right to say it. These may be private companies but it's clear they wish to supress speach they do not like. It is their right to exlcude content but it shows political bias and I can't support them for it.

a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Correct.

So tired of this "oh they're private companies" cop-out the "liberals" keep falling back on. These ultra super mega corps are all subsidized, and they're effectively 'the Internet' in terms of communications platforms within it. That makes them public utilities in its own right. And if anybody should be able to grasp the concept of 'public property' type noise it should be the "liberals" first and foremost.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You know I feel like they used to care about this sort of thing. I'm not sure what happened. Everything seems so polorized. It's okay if it's the other party and I just don't get that. I still see a bit of objective right and wrong. Or at least I think I do. I wish we all tried to see things that way.

a reply to: redletter

Stop gulping the coolaid brother...you sound very confused and lost. You really should not mention Alex Jones in the same sentence as your religion that you put your whole belief system and life into. It really discredits...delete this thread. You are fodder for the internet to devour.

a reply to: redletter

Russia banned the Bible?!? Cmon people let's not make it so easy to call conspiracy theorists testicle heads.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The problem is that they do this and claim it's their right and they have immunity as "publishers." However, they don't market or present themselves to the public as publishers in the sense of newspapers or magazines are with strictly controlled content producers. They present themselves as platforms available for all to self-publish essentially and they promote themselves as free and open to all (or they used to).

And through their efforts, they've pretty much knee-capped the traditional press and print publishing because everyone moved away from those content producers to produce their own content as they saw fit because those platforms encouraged it and promoted themselves as a place where such could be done.

So now they want to make themselves the editorial room over all the content producers because they're publishers again rather than simply platforms.

Don't like him, think he is a loon, making money off the gullible, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, so I would agree there are kernels of truth in his schtick.

Having said that he shouldn't be shut down(he isn't really as he hosts his own website) Youtube and FB are their own entities(maybe) so they can filter whatever material goes through them I suppose.

I don't like censorship..not really sure if this is it, as there are seemingly private companies.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You know I feel like they used to care about this sort of thing. I'm not sure what happened. Everything seems so polorized. It's okay if it's the other party and I just don't get that. I still see a bit of objective right and wrong. Or at least I think I do. I wish we all tried to see things that way.

What explains all this jazz is supremacists require censorship to see their competition driven before them.

originally posted by: vonclod
Don't like him, think he is a loon, making money off the gullible, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, so I would agree there are kernels of truth in his schtick.

Having said that he shouldn't be shut down(he isn't really as he hosts his own website) Youtube and FB are their own entities(maybe) so they can filter whatever material goes through them I suppose.

I don't like censorship..not really sure if this is it, as there are seemingly private companies.

Well actually I think it is. It's no coincidence that he is being banned by LOTS of platforms all at the same time. If it was just Youtube, maybe or just spotify maybe, but from what I've heard he is being banned by tons of platforms and some I have never even heard of. If that's not censorship, I don't know what would be considered censorship. More to come, I feel sure and then maybe some will see this is not just simply an Alex Jones issue.

a reply to: keenmachine

I kinda agree with you..I'm a bit undecided but starting to lean your way..if it were govt entities banning him I would agree 100% that it is censorship. But private companies are free to decide what material goes through them.
Jones can still do what he does on his site though.

a reply to: vonclod

Well you are right there, these are companies and they can decide who can use their platform. If you want to see Alex Jones you can go to his website and watch him there. But now that he is no longer available on so many platforms, not too many people are going to stumble across his material. This is on purpose, considering the ban coming from so many platforms at exactly the same time. Someone suddenly removed from so many platforms they were once available, for anyone to come across, feels like censorship to me. Maybe I am looking at it wrong but the odds that someone who was unaware of Jones and his work, coming across his material just greatly decreased in one swoop, by many private companies ALL deciding to do the same thing to Jones, at the same time. As I have said, I think he is just the beginning, the guinea pig so to speak.

a reply to: keenmachine

Maybe "passive censorship" is a fitting term.

a reply to: redletter


Twitter CEO explains why his platform is NOT going to ban Alex Jones/InfoWars.
www.bbc.com...

a reply to: redletter

Censorship is very dangerous in this political climate for everybody regardless of belief structure.

I give you the example of Milo, no I don't agree with him, but he needs to be able to express himself and then have people explain exactly why he is wrong. Beat him with intelligent articulation, not censorship. This is a real problem right now ideologically there is no discourse just name calling and labeling. See my signature.

As for your other comments, where this is heading is if the Alt-Left gets their way, is the censoring of the bible outright as hate speech. And this is why I still stick up for stupid free speech. I will post what I did in the other thread.

First they came for Milo
Then they came Alex Jones
Later they came for Mark Dice
Finally they came for Candace Owens

And then the MSM & social media was happy because they had achieved their echo chamber of thought.

Seems to me the brown shirts did exactly that in the 1930's under National "SOCIALISM".
Socialism isn't bad in itself, but when those that promote it begin to use censoring tactics to voices that oppose it...we have traveled down this path before and it led to a horrible place.

And those that opposed it by staying neutral without compromise ended up with purple triangles on their chests and in concentration camps.
It really worries me when I see people attacking other people on social media because they have tried to stay neutral, so they don't get attacked by one side.

Reminds me of the freshly appointed Darth Vaders Sith comment to Obi-wan, the left has fallen to the dark side, and they used to be the better people for social issues.



I mean they were correct to ago against Bush during the Iraq war for example, they used to be on the correct side for lots of issues.
They were the ones speaking out for free speech in the sixties and seventies. Now they want to shut down all voices not theirs, how they have fallen.