Alex Jones and corporate censorship

Censorship is bad, to advocate for it because you approve of what is being censored is a mistake because if you agree with the censorship of someone else's view, what argument can you make to oppose the censorship of your view?

Using the internet involves a complex infrastructure, one must rely on a variety of networks and elements to protect privacy, for secure transactions, against malware and viruses, for the interpretation of media and its transmission. We know algorithms are used to prognosticate delivery of advertising based on a user's online history, age, gender, income, location and other details derived from places visited and transmissions. It is not difficult to see how this same information could be used wrongfully if the intent was to censor. To develop the quality of infrastructure needed to freely communicate online without censorship would be very difficult if such an effort was opposed.

Those who maintain that one can easily just use other platforms if they are banned from the one they favor are ignoring the interconnectedness of the internet. When my access to certain sites is detected through my history and those sites are identified as censorable, I will be too.

 

Because Sessions is absent from his duties means nothing. Microsoft is clearly a monopoly, the US govt and EU went after MS and MS bought its way out of trouble (and don't bring up that niche of an OS called Linux as an alternative, it in no way is suitable to mass market).

Alphabet is nearly a monopoly if it isn't already, but it is such a tool of the "progressives" that nothing will be done to it.

<>

Net neutrality was a scam. The big bandwidth users such as Netflix wanted it because it keeps their costs way down. The govt wanted it because it was the start of turning the net into a utility to be regulated by the govt (fairness doctrine anyone?).

And have you noticed that all the big tech companies that wanted Net Neutrality claiming it would allow free speech on the internet are also the companies leading the charge to censor speech?

NN has as much to do with free speech as Google follows its motto of "don't be evil".

<>

Free market is a system in which there is competition between private companies. When all the main gatekeepers of the web collude, its not a free market.

As I posted earlier, there is no difference between not being able to access the internet, and blocking access to your content. For example, 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.

 

If I violate the TOS, the owners of this site certainly have a right to ban me--either permanently or temporarily, at their discretion (or according to their own rules, as the case may be).

How, exactly, did Alex Jones suddenly violate his agreement, in a way that he did not in the past?

 

It is odd for so many to simultaneously stop carrying the man.

His remarks concerning the Sandy Hook victims are reprehensible. No argument there.

But just what has he recently said that prompted so many to simultaneously stop carrying him?

 

Sessions failures reflects directly on Trump. If, as some here have asserted, it's a LW conspiracy to silence Jones, then Trump is completely complicit in the conspiracy.

As it is, I think Jones ****ed himself by flagrantly violating the TOS of several platforms. He's rich. He still posts whatever he likes on his website. He can buy and set up his own internet service. After all, Hillary did it.

 

Are you saying that if he wasn't dropped on the first instance, he can't ever be banned? I don't know the answer to your question. How many times was he warned before he was dropped?

 

Yes, but it wasn't simultaneous. It happened over a number of weeks. Youtube banned several of his videos in July. Then in early August FB removed four videos and put a 30 day block on Jones for uploading them. Apple then pulled some podcasts. After further complaints FB closed down a number of his pages the same day. Then spotify pulled his podcasts and Youtube pulled down his channel.

Twitter suspended him for a week.

These were all reactions to the content he continually posted and the behaviour of the other companies. There is nothing new or 'odd' about corporate 'follow the leader' behaviour. It is really, really commonplace. One company in a given industry does something and a bunch of others follow suit.

BTW, Jones still gets 10-15 million visits to his website per month plus whatever numbers listen to his online radio broadcasts. Anybody who is interested can get all the Jones craziness they want in seconds.

 

Dunno.

If he was warned repeatedly, and continued in his nefarious ways, he deserved to be dropped.

But that is mere speculation.

In any case, it does seem strange that he would have been warned by all these outlets the exact number of times--resulting in his dismissal at the same time, from all.

 

I fully agree with your assessment that Alex Jones' views represent "craziness"; and I have no interest whatsoever in following him.

I just do not like the idea of anybody being censored.

 

Exactly, so it seems stupid to me for people to push a political agenda onto those platforms.

That's not what happened, but I can see you have some political agendas of your own to push.

 

I am really not quite sure just what "political agendas" you have in mind.

I have said previously--but I will reiterate here--that I emphatically do NOT embrace the hatefulness and wild conspiracy theories of Alex Jones. So if these "political agendas" include--supposedly--some desire, on my part, to defend Alex Jones and his crazy worldview, then you are badly mistaken.

I just do not care for the canning of ANYBODY because of his views--wherever he may fall on the political spectrum.

Do you really imagine that everyone who sincerely dislikes Alex Jones must, therefore, be gleeful about his sudden canning?

 

The govt is not a unified entity. Clearly it is fractured into an establishment faction (most of govt) and a non-establishment faction (Trump and his supporters). They are fighting each other. That should be obvious at this point.

Sessions looked like a good choice at the time but turned out to be a disastrous selection. Trump has made some mistakes in appointing people, and I attribute that to his inexperience in politics. Trump should have steered clear of the long term political hacks.

It is clearly a left wing conspiracy to silence conservatives. Today, the news is all about conservative posts and links to conservative articles being labeled as spam and blocked. And not content from places like Alex Jones, but mainstream places like links to American Thinker and Mises, some are even showing that their tweets containing religious content are labeled spam.

Don't you find it odd that this always happens to conservatives?

And what is that "TOS" he violated? The TOS are so broad that it can mean anything. What is "hateful" content? In the eyes of the LW anything that is critical of illegal immigrants, pro 2nd amendment, "homophobic" or "racist" (two huge catch all labels), is hateful.

 

Trump has made "mistakes" in appointing poor people because of his complete lack of moral or constitutional principles. He went to Washington to take advantage of the gangster's paradise it is.

 

Then I fail to understand point. Are you not attacking the various platforms for banning Jones over TOS violations or not?

 

Agreed. It never has been. Next time the conspiracy theory nutjobs claim it is, will you help me tell them it isn't so?

Trump has a made a lot of empty promises. He's obviously bitten off more than he can chew. One doesn't have to be experienced in politics to pick good people. He's just not as good a leader as he claims.

Aw jeez. I had such high hopes about you standing against the conspiracy theory nutjobs.

 

If I believed that Alex Jones suddenly violated the terms of his agreements, then I would have no problem with his dismissal.

But to suddenly ban him, if he has done nothing more than previously, does not seem quite kosher.

Note: If he had been warned repeatedly, that is quite another matter. But I do not know if this is the case.

 

All forums have rules and a TOS. Most of us who have been on forums for several years have receieved warnings. Some have even been banned. Some forums are biased Left or Right, but I don't know of any that have banned someone without a warning or two.

 

I am guessing that this is meant to imply that Alex Jones had been warned. Perhaps repeatedly.

And if that is so--to reiterate--I would have no problem with his being dismissed.

But all you appear to be offering is mere speculation--based, it seems, upon the practices of some political forums.

 

Yes, just like you and your conspiracy theory.

 

Exactly what "conspiracy theory," exactly, do you suppose that I embrace? (Note: Alex Jones may, indeed, embrace conspiracy theories--and I am no fan of his--so you must show that I, personally, embrace some "conspiracy theory." Merely demonstrating that Alex Jones does so will not do.

 

That all of the platforms that banned Jones are LWers who colluded to ban him.

Example:

 

I’ve read Zito’s post has been restored. The Wednesday posting on why Manafort’s conviction and Cohen’s plea don’t matter to Trump supporters was a rather jaundiced opinion piece giving ten reasons why none of this matters to Trump’s supporters. I don’t remember them all, positive economic prospects, certainty if there really was anything on collusion we’d know by now, the notion Hillary would have been much worse and the perception Trump is the only one concerned about their situation, were among the reasons the New York Post adduced for a lack of concern over Manafort and Cohen.

Elsewhere I read Facebook can spontaneously mobilize 12 million votes and that the internet giants are hosting a secret summit to coordinate midterm election strategy.

I suppose this will get so egregious at some point the government will intervene. Between now and then conservatives will be denouncing censorship and critical lefties incongruously advocating for private enterprise.​

 

I find it interesting that three antonyms for the word "conspire" are, "neglect", "disagree" and "divide".