Alex Jones and corporate censorship

So then why did you mention false advertising in relation to him?

Are you saying that anything that Jones has done is illegal or SHOULD be illegal in your eyes?

 

You asked on what charges "could be". I gave some examples. Don't you remember? Are you okay, Chris?

No. All I've said is that he's immoral, unethical and a liar. Again, are you okay? You seem to ask questions then jump to off-the-wall conclusions from answers. Why did you dodge answering my questions?

 

And Russian prostitutes are peeing on them all, oh my!

 

Well, as Putin told Trump, they do have the best hookers!

 

On censorship. This is what I came across.

1 - Someone told my daughter that he merely mentioned Alex Jones in a tweet about censorship and he was banned.

2 - Someone also told her that he was banned for mentioning Franklyn Graham, and that his name is not allowed to be mentioned. If true, they are banning Billy Graham's son and the head of one of the world's largest charities: 'Samaritan's Purse'.

3 - Dutchsense who is giving the world a service on Youtube by following magma swarms and telling the world when and where an earthquake will hit as well as the size, is always complaining about the attacks on his program - and Youtube won't even tell him why. Either it's because he pin points the quakes and they turn out to be fracking areas, or because they didn't like him saying that some fires are not caused by lightning, but are coming from inside the earth.
​

 

No doubt Russian censorship is a beotch.

 

I don't watch Jones, but only because I lack the patience to watch his videos, but when I did I never found him to be immoral, unethical or a liar. Quite the contrary, especially when compared to the MSM with their embellishments, exaggerations and deliberate distortions.

What I did find is that those Jones condemns such as Hillary and her cohorts, are usually the one's who are immoral, unethical and liars. Jones will usually give proof of what he says - but sometimes he forms his opinion on hearsay. But then again everyone does, so a person has to decide for themselves.

 

LOL

Jones admitted under oath that he's not serious. That he only plays a character. Obviously there are enough dumbasses who take his character seriously to make him very rich.

 

Of course everyone has some form of censorship, especially when it's a threat to one's country like for instance the NGO's which are meant for regime changes. Anything that would benefit a foreign power rather than the people living in a country of course should be banned. No nation should be turned into another Ukraine or Syria.

 

Agreed. Pedophilia is censored in the US. I don't know if Putin censors it in Russia.

 

Jones admits that he shouldn't be taken seriously on some of the things he says. Hey, everyone has a right to give their opinion. On most things though, Jones does give factual proof - as do most of the conservative sites- but not the MSM.

Anyway the MSM's have lost their followers, and need to be subsidized by the CIA. Wouldn't that be government control? Pravda anyone?

 

Maybe it doesn't exist in the media, so it doesn't need to be. There is such a thing as societal pressure, and it can be far stronger than laws.

 

That's only true when each service provider acts independently. When all of them co-operate in acting against the general interest, its a monopoly.

And since the internet is "the future", and is replacing many other means of communication to the point certain services are almost required in order to function in the modern world, the internet providers/gatekeepers are more of a utility than a private company.

 

Actually, that's not true. With tv and radio, there was the so-called FCC "fairness doctrine" which required broadcasters to air both sides of an issue. That was in effect from 1949 to 1987, but its reinstatement is brought up regularly and is why so many news shows present both sides of a political issue.

Broadcast frequencies and licenses are issued by the federal govt, issuance requires a broadcaster to show some degree of "fairness" in political issues.

Over the past 20 years, the Democrats have tried multiple times to bring back the fairness regulation in order to quell talk radio - which is overwhelmingly conservative - and Fox news.

It only takes a "few key strokes" if your search engine does not filter the results and block the sites they do not approve. Are you going to create your own search engine?

What if the gatekeepers to the internet do not allow you access to sites which they do not approve? For example, what if Cox decides it will block "fake news" content just like Google, youtube, twitter, etc block content they do not like?

Then Jones can put up as many web sites as he wishes, but nobody will be able to access them.

No. We are almost there now. There is no difference between not being able to access the internet, and blocking access to your content.

If a persons twitter account is shadow blocked so he can post but nobody can see his post, its the same as not being able to post all.

 

He was banned for advocating armed violence.He should be permanently banned for lying to the gullible and taking advantage of their stupidity.

 

Monopolies are illegal. Is Sessions doing something about it?

If that were true, then why cancel net neutrality? It's free market now. Caveat Emptor! LOL

 

I got in a debate with someone about this and found their arguments incredibly hypocritical as they were coming from the far Left/Leftists.

So, people are SUPER upset that the NFL is not allowing their players to have certain free speech rights. AKA, they are not allowing their players to kneel because they are losing money from advertisers and fans alike.

Yet, now the same Leftists are arguing that certain companies should have the right to curtail whatever free speech they want on their platform.

Now, I tend to agree, however the hypocrisy in the matter is simply too much to ignore.

If you want companies to have the right to only allow whatever speech they want on their platform, then you better shut your mouth as to the NFL not allowing players to use their free speech (kneeling) as they see fit.

If you argue for one and not the other, you are a MASSIVE hypocrite and that is really all there is to it.

 

This flippantly assumes that Alex Jones is a member of the right. And nothing could be further from the truth.

He is a hatemonger and a conspiracy theorist--not a bona fide member of "the right."

No, they have not.

But to suddenly stop carrying someone who has previously been carried does seem a bit odd--to say the least.

Note: I want to reiterate that I am not a fan of Alex Jones--to put it mildly. But I do think that the sudden, mass reaction to him is ...well, a bit strange...

 

If you scroll up, you'll see it's RWers defending him and both Independents and LWers who oppose him.

 

I am not "defending" him. Rather, I am defending his right to speak--however hateful and ridiculous his speech may be (and is).

 

I know you aren't. I simply pointed out what many others have already posted on this thread.

Yes, he has a right to speak. Does the First Amendment apply to the government or everyone? You signed a TOS when you joined this forum. If you violate that TOS, do you agree the owners, who allow us to post for free, to temp or perm ban you? If so, then why do you think any other Internet format doesn't have the same right?

 

That's a good observation, the venue is private, team owners ought to be able to decide who gets to express what.

 

Snark is not a response.

 

My example specifically related to newspapers. However, the 'fairness doctrine' did not compel giving air time ti all opinions, just a range of them. Further, the fundamental reason for it was limited bandwidth, which limited the entry of new players into the marketplace of ideas.

That does not apply to the internet in this context. Multiple competitors already exist to all the programs being listed and multiple means exist to access all the content we are discussing. More can be created.

Lots of 'what ifs' here and very little about what is actually happening. There are multiple search engines that can be used. Keep trying until you find one you like.

The issue of a company like Cox blocking content is entirely different to what we are discussing. They are not hosting content but providing the means for its transmission. Different job, different rules. There was an attempt to address that with 'net neutrality' laws, but they no longer exist courtesy of the GOP because apparently they interfered wit the 'free market'. By all means campaign to return them.

There is an argument for allowing such companies to block illegal content such as child porn, but I'd need to wade through eh arguments before reaching a conclusion on that.

No, there is a massive difference between being unable to use a particular platform and being blocked from the net. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc, are one means above many to communicate, host content etc. There are others now and there will be more into the future.

 

There seem to be a lot of self identifying right wingers on this thread & elsewhere in this forum who think otherwise. Take it up whit them.

Why is it 'odd' to stop carrying someone? Attitudes & awareness change. The appalling behaviour Jones has exhibited for years has finally caught up with him. There are parents of dead Sandy Hook victims who are afraid to visit their child's grave as a result of harassment actively encouraged by Jones. No website or platform should be compelled to host content by someone like that.