Alex Jones

[RPM 26223]

He's on record saying he's not a journalist, he's an entertainer. Looks like private companies chose not to carry his entertainment. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

Jones criticizes Q and boom! he's gone.  Witness the power of Q.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

27 minutes ago, RPM said:

He's on record saying he's not a journalist, he's an entertainer. Looks like private companies chose not to carry his entertainment. 

I think there’s more stuff to come out on the Alex Jones’ operation.  They were pretty much a Russian propaganda front in that they’ve been repackaging stories (like 1000s of them) from Russia Today since circa 2014/15.

[atomheartbevo 89424]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think there’s more stuff to come out on the Alex Jones’ operation.  They were pretty much a Russian propaganda front in that they’ve been repackaging stories (like 1000s of them) from Russia Today since circa 2014/15.

Hugo, many of us here remember him from Austin Public Access TV, and have encountered him in person.

He’s out to make a buck. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Hugo, many of us here remember him from Austin Public Access TV, and have encountered him in person.

He’s out to make a buck. 

No doubt but...

Over the past three years, conspiracy site InfoWars has copied more than 1,000 articles produced by Russian state-sponsored broadcaster RT to its website — all without the permission of RT.

According to data from social sharing tracking website BuzzSumo, there were at least 1,014 RT articles republished on InfoWars since May of 2014. The articles appeared on InfoWars with a byline credit to RT, but a spokesperson for the Russian broadcaster told BuzzFeed News that InfoWars did not have permission to re-publish its content.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/infowars-is-running-rt-content#.suZ5ABBKO

 

What if it turns out Russia was paying Alex Jones to reproduce RT content?

Because you know that’s what they would do.

Follow the money.

[JimmyJames 12271]

He generates at least 70 million plus in revenue just from merchandise. That’s a whole lot of supplements from a bullshit conspiracy site. Interesting to find out who is buying all that garbage...

[atomheartbevo 89424]

Or what if Jones was being a cheap bastard, and knew RT would not come after him, unlike Fox News or Breitbart?

This happens all the time.  I've had dozens of articles lifted off of my sites, or sites I manage, and 99% of the time, they don’t bother giving credit. 

He wanted quick content, and correctly judged RT wouldn’t lawyer up.

[Amobie 58]

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No doubt but...

Over the past three years, conspiracy site InfoWars has copied more than 1,000 articles produced by Russian state-sponsored broadcaster RT to its website — all without the permission of RT.

According to data from social sharing tracking website BuzzSumo, there were at least 1,014 RT articles republished on InfoWars since May of 2014. The articles appeared on InfoWars with a byline credit to RT, but a spokesperson for the Russian broadcaster told BuzzFeed News that InfoWars did not have permission to re-publish its content.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/infowars-is-running-rt-content#.suZ5ABBKO

 

What if it turns out Russia was paying Alex Jones to reproduce RT content?

Because you know that’s what they would do.

Follow the money.

You’re on the right track here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Or what if Jones was being a cheap bastard, and knew RT would not come after him, unlike Fox News or Breitbart?

This happens all the time.  I've had dozens of articles lifted off of my sites, or sites I manage, and 99% of the time, they don’t bother giving credit. 

He wanted quick content, and correctly judged RT wouldn’t lawyer up.

While you could likely be correct, the pieces fit too well between Russia’s subversion tactics and the target audiences of Alex Jones.

 Russia works on the fringes and Alex Jones selling himself as a red blooded everyday American from Texas is the perfect mark.

Alex Jones fits the profile for Russia on every level.  He’s a morally bankrupt greedy POS that would sell his soul to make a few extra dollars.  Russia would be foolish not to exploit him as much as possible.

[hayden_horn 11360]

I'm in a weird gray place regarding these developments. While these are public companies doing their public company things, I'm not sure I'm a fan of this kind of shutdown. It can and could swing any number of ways. 

[texas08 1599]

loser

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

33 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

I'm in a weird gray place regarding these developments. While these are public companies doing their public company things, I'm not sure I'm a fan of this kind of shutdown. It can and could swing any number of ways. 

Don’t you suspend posters for hate speech? 

I mean I get it, but Alex Jones is the poster boy for a bad actor.

It’s challenging to argue he wasn’t harmful to public health on those platforms.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RPM 26223]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

He’s out to make a buck ruble.

fify

[Mole 4320]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

I'm in a weird gray place regarding these developments. While these are public companies doing their public company things, I'm not sure I'm a fan of this kind of shutdown. It can and could swing any number of ways. 

This is where I'm at. I'm certainly not celebrating this. Part of it is that I still see Alex as the guy who came on after Reverend Ricky preached with a toilet seat around his neck. He's a nutcase, but he's our nutcase. Mostly, I see censorship like this as usually worse than the alternative, even if the content is insane, obnoxious, and sometimes hurtful. While these are corporations that are free to enforce their content policies, they hold an enormous amount of power in controlling the dissemination of information.

I've always seen Jones as a performance artist more than anything else.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Upon further thought, there’s no way the Russians would co-opt a media outlet which name is literally shorthand for Information Warfare.

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

14 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Unfortunately, we need to bring back dueling.  There use to be a consequence to spouting off BS and saying whatever the fuck you want...now there is none.  Our forefathers designed our government and Constitution in a time when there was a check on slander (even through technically illegal means).   If some of these pussies had to worry that their BS might be called out and their life will be on the line, some of this would stop.

This is where we’re at in 2018.  I actually think ‘bring back dueling’ is a fantastic idea.  

 

Oh and this is fucking awesome...fuck you alex jones, you motherfucking cunt.  

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

This is where I'm at. I'm certainly not celebrating this. Part of it is that I still see Alex as the guy who came on after Reverend Ricky preached with a toilet seat around his neck. He's a nutcase, but he's our nutcase. Mostly, I see censorship like this as usually worse than the alternative, even if the content is insane, obnoxious, and sometimes hurtful. While these are corporations that are free to enforce their content policies, they hold an enormous amount of power in controlling the dissemination of information.

I've always seen Jones as a performance artist more than anything else.

There is a difference in a private organization not allowing someone to use their platform as a means to convey hate-speech and a governmental body censoring a private citizen from exercising their rights.

This is the former. Alex Jones may still have other means of conveying his brand of hate, but it wont be allowed on the platforms that have removed his content thus far anymore. He may be your nutcase, but he sure as fuck isn't mine.

[RPM 26223]

Was FOX News censoring Glenn Beck when they decided to stop broadcasting him? What about Mike Huckabee? Just because they dropped his show it isn't like they went full Norman Peale. (But just imagine the ratings that would get!)

[HenryJames 65890]

 

[RPM 26223]

He still has his own host at infowars.com, right? Nobody is silencing him. He just has to pay for his bandwidth.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

10 minutes ago, RPM said:

He still has his own host at infowars.com, right? Nobody is silencing him. He just has to pay for his bandwidth.

Exactly. He is free to spew his hateful bullshit over there, on his own platform (even though it's disgraceful and despicable). Alex Jones' real problem is that his message is that of a deplorable asshole who is spewing hatred; were he to not do that he wouldn't have to worry about such trivial matters like getting kicked off of iTunes, Facebook, and YouTube.

[SpiralOut 1809]

5 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Exactly. He is free to spew his hateful bullshit over there, on his own platform (even though it's disgraceful and despicable). Alex Jones' real problem is that his message is that of a deplorable asshole who is spewing hatred; were he to not do that he wouldn't have to worry about such trivial matters like getting kicked off of iTunes, Facebook, and YouTube.

What would be nice is for those same companies to kick a few of the leftist hate mongers off as well.  Don't turn Alex fucking Jones of all people into a martyr for the nutjobs on the right.  All of them getting rid of him in a day while terrorists still have Twitter accounts, people preaching hate against whitey on their YT channels stay up, etc. is just asking for trouble.

Prove that this really is a move to limit shitty people and not just politically motivated.  Otherwise, you've just given crazy-town someone they can rally around while making it look like you're just using your rules/policies as a political tool.

[hayden_horn 11360]

8 hours ago, RPM said:

Was FOX News censoring Glenn Beck when they decided to stop broadcasting him? What about Mike Huckabee? Just because they dropped his show it isn't like they went full Norman Peale. (But just imagine the ratings that would get!)

 

6 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Exactly. He is free to spew his hateful bullshit over there, on his own platform (even though it's disgraceful and despicable). Alex Jones' real problem is that his message is that of a deplorable asshole who is spewing hatred; were he to not do that he wouldn't have to worry about such trivial matters like getting kicked off of iTunes, Facebook, and YouTube.

actually, yall convinced me. these are compelling arguments.

[Smax 3800]

I find it alarming that the 3 largest media companies conspired to silence him, we are well on our way to the message err news being in the hands a small number of companies and their ability to shape it to fit their narrative is terrifying .

 

[Brisketexan 104604]

 

38 minutes ago, SpiralOut said:

What would be nice is for those same companies to kick a few of the leftist hate mongers off as well.  Don't turn Alex fucking Jones of all people into a martyr for the nutjobs on the right.  All of them getting rid of him in a day while terrorists still have Twitter accounts, people preaching hate against whitey on their YT channels stay up, etc. is just asking for trouble.

Prove that this really is a move to limit shitty people and not just politically motivated.  Otherwise, you've just given crazy-town someone they can rally around while making it look like you're just using your rules/policies as a political tool.

Well, the problem is....there really isn't a significant group of nutbar leftist voices using these platforms (Youtube is a great example).  I mean, it's like asking "if they would call holding on both teams, it would give the refs more credibility"....but one team is blatantly holding 5 times on every play, and the other team is well-disciplined and hardly holds at all.

I remember a trial once where opposing counsel finally lost it, asking the judge "will you instruct him to stop objecting so much?!?", to which the judge replied "well, when you stop doing things that merit an objection, I'll do that."

The position-neutral rules that these providers have -- things like no hate speech, no clear defamation, etc. -- those are good rules.  If you can't present your position without violating those terms of service, then the problem is YOU, not your "side."  I'm sure that if someone on the left is stupid enough to post videos about how Trump is a lizard person who smells of sulphur and feasts on the flesh of infants, that person would be banned too.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

10 minutes ago, Smax said:

I find it alarming that the 3 largest media companies conspired to silence him, we are well on our way to the message err news being in the hands a small number of companies and their ability to shape it to fit their narrative is terrifying .

 

youtube, facebook, and itunes are not news outlets. they, as you put it first, are media companies. they are private companies who have every right to control the content on their platforms.

this is not censorship. jones still has his own site to spew his bullshit. he isn't being prevented from getting his stupid message out. he just isn't being allowed to do so on other people's sites. I see no problem here. These are for-profit companies and they made a decision to discontinue a brand. tough shit

[ndawg 1242]

14 minutes ago, Smax said:

I find it alarming that the 3 largest media companies conspired to silence him, we are well on our way to the message err news being in the hands a small number of companies and their ability to shape it to fit their narrative is terrifying .

 

Interestingly enough, I used to find completely ignorant posts like this alarming, at least until their sheer abundance left me numb. Here's to being terrified for our future!

[Hornius Emeritus 12419]

In other Facebook news, Facebook has not silenced/censored Traces of Texas, nor has Twitter.

 

[TornACL 7675]

 

25 minutes ago, Smax said:

I find it alarming that the 3 largest media companies conspired to silence him, we are well on our way to the message err news being in the hands a small number of companies and their ability to shape it to fit their narrative is terrifying .

 

I find your lack of context and poor knowledge of history alarming.

[BrickHorn 18191]

29 minutes ago, Smax said:

I find it alarming that the 3 largest media companies conspired to silence him, we are well on our way to the message err news being in the hands a small number of companies and their ability to shape it to fit their narrative is terrifying .

 

It’s the same mistake we made in World War II, when we killed a bunch of Nazis but didn’t do shit against the equally vile German communists.  

[Smax 3800]

http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/

Its a slippery slope IMO since that number is only going to grow

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

12 minutes ago, Smax said:

http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/

Its a slippery slope IMO since that number is only going to grow

no, it's not. if anything it purges the actual fake media because they can't get their poisoned messages to the masses. News outlets should report on their platforms. Let the public take them to facebook, twitter, etc, if they want.

And again, if any of these companies deem your shit hate speech or spreading falsehoods, then I completely agree they should take the content down. Again, it's THEIR prerogative

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

18 minutes ago, Smax said:

http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/

Its a slippery slope IMO since that number is only going to grow

I write a book about how Smax is the Zodiac Killer, the person on the Trump pee tapes, and having an affair with Swam and orca of peace.  Barnes and Noble decides to not stock this book in stores.  Is my free speech being violated?

[Ted Lange 16048]

Right wingers bemoan FAKE NEWS, the cheer is lead by the President. Actual fake news is blocked by Facebook and YouTube, and all the sudden they are PRO fake news.

Baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to gays.  Right wing, that’s their choice, it’s a private business!  YouTube doesn’t want to let Alex Jones on their site, right wingers, this is bullshit!

[Hiphopopotamos 20865]

MailChimp has terminated Alex Jones' accounts.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/07/alex-jones-shows-document-saying-hes-also-been-removed-mailchimp/220922

.

[Mole 4320]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

youtube, facebook, and itunes are not news outlets. they, as you put it first, are media companies. they are private companies who have every right to control the content on their platforms.

this is not censorship. jones still has his own site to spew his bullshit. he isn't being prevented from getting his stupid message out. he just isn't being allowed to do so on other people's sites. I see no problem here. These are for-profit companies and they made a decision to discontinue a brand. tough shit

The concern for me isn't whether or not they have the right - they do - but whether or not what's going is a positive. The comparisons with traditional media outlets don't resonate with me. These are very different entities than other media companies. I'm also not all that concerned about or interested in Alex Jones in particular. He's a nutcase who was fun to watch on public access TV when he was ranting about black helicopters. Now he has a big and established platform and is probably benefiting from this publicity right now. The concern for me is the power that a small number of companies hold in our access to information and how they are wielding this power in a very public and possibly political way. It's weird to see so many who were worried about corporate control of access to information on the net neutrality issue celebrating this move. It's probably not another step towards some dystopian future, but I don't see it as a positive thing even though it's directed at a particularly obnoxious voice.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

Mole, I agree the traditional media outlets isn't an iron clad analogy.  This is more like they have chosen not to carry his products in their store, or they have chosen to ban him from coming into their store anymore.  If Target quit carrying Martha Stewart's widgets would you be as concerned?  He was offering a product for sale (cheap), and some of his retailers has decided they'd rather not sell his shit anymore.  He can still sell direct, and those who were interested in his message can simply buy direct now.  Hell, he can put it all behind a paywall and charge something for it now, so financially it could even be a good thing.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

56 minutes ago, Mole said:

The concern for me isn't whether or not they have the right - they do - but whether or not what's going is a positive. The comparisons with traditional media outlets don't resonate with me. These are very different entities than other media companies. I'm also not all that concerned about or interested in Alex Jones in particular. He's a nutcase who was fun to watch on public access TV when he was ranting about black helicopters. Now he has a big and established platform and is probably benefiting from this publicity right now. The concern for me is the power that a small number of companies hold in our access to information and how they are wielding this power in a very public and possibly political way. It's weird to see so many who were worried about corporate control of access to information on the net neutrality issue celebrating this move. It's probably not another step towards some dystopian future, but I don't see it as a positive thing even though it's directed at a particularly obnoxious voice.

If this freaks you out now, just wait until the corporations perfect AI to flood the platforms clandestinely pushing their agenda non stop. 

Unless the big platforms can govern themselves in a socially responsible way, it's time to pass some laws.

It looks like the platforms are acknowledging their responsibility to public health and acting accordingly with Alex Jones.    

[SpiralOut 1809]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Well, the problem is....there really isn't a significant group of nutbar leftist voices using these platforms (Youtube is a great example).  I mean, it's like asking "if they would call holding on both teams, it would give the refs more credibility"....but one team is blatantly holding 5 times on every play, and the other team is well-disciplined and hardly holds at all.

I remember a trial once where opposing counsel finally lost it, asking the judge "will you instruct him to stop objecting so much?!?", to which the judge replied "well, when you stop doing things that merit an objection, I'll do that."

The position-neutral rules that these providers have -- things like no hate speech, no clear defamation, etc. -- those are good rules.  If you can't present your position without violating those terms of service, then the problem is YOU, not your "side."  I'm sure that if someone on the left is stupid enough to post videos about how Trump is a lizard person who smells of sulphur and feasts on the flesh of infants, that person would be banned too.

Yeah, I think you're showing your age here, Brisket.  I don't think anyone on the left has Jones' level of followers, but there are plenty of downright horrid people getting to freely express their horseshit who never get touched.  I mean, the Asian chick hired by the NYT is just one example.  She's clearly as racist as it comes and Twitter hasn't done a thing.  Meanwhile, that annoying black conservative gal takes the Asian chick's posts and replaces white with Jewish or black and she's insta-banned.  That's a double standard that's built into their algorithm.  Position-neutral rules have to actually be position-neutral.

Antifa is a legitimate domestic terrorist organization.  They promote the violent overthrow of the government, their followers are actually attacking people in the real world, and they use rhetoric like "Liberals get the bullet, too."  They're ALL OVER these media sites. 

You mentioned YouTube as being some bastion of no nutjobs on the left.  Except YouTube is partnered with the SPLC.  A nonprofit which clearly has a bias and which has been working to get conservative voices blacklisted on sites like YT. 

YT and the SPLC

And your argument just makes no sense.  There are nutjobs on the right like Jones.  Yet, in your mind, there are hardly any nutjobs on the left?  Or are they just technically illiterate and don't understand how to make YT videos or post to Facebook?  Or could it be you're just biased towards them and against the right so you're conveniently willing to overlook their transgressions?

And just for laughs, here are some videos I found on YT just by searching "Trump is a lizard person."

Someone ban Jim Carey from social media!  Think of the children! 

[Brisketexan 104604]

10 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Mole, I agree the traditional media outlets isn't an iron clad analogy.  This is more like they have chosen not to carry his products in their store, or they have chosen to ban him from coming into their store anymore.  If Target quit carrying Martha Stewart's widgets would you be as concerned?  He was offering a product for sale (cheap), and some of his retailers has decided they'd rather not sell his shit anymore.  He can still sell direct, and those who were interested in his message can simply buy direct now.  Hell, he can put it all behind a paywall and charge something for it now, so financially it could even be a good thing.

How about this -- Target doesn't have a policy of banning nazis, or antifa, or dems, or repubs.  It has a policy of banning people who disrupt the retail environment and make it unpleasant and less-used by other patrons.

So, if you walk into Target and start yelling "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!", and they kick your ass out, they didn't kick you out because of your views.  They kicked you out because you were an asshole shitting on their patrons and fucking up the product they are selling.  Had you walked in yelling "FUCK NAZIS! PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE!" over and over, I'm expecting you'd be kicked out, too.

Twitter, for example, banned over 377,000 pro-terrorist accounts in just the last six months of 2016.  For these assholes today to claim they are unique is fucking rich.

These platforms have content-neutral standards with regard to out and out hate speech, threats, and defamation.  They've cut a LOT of slack to these assholes -- too much, and now they've gotten used to is.  Tough shit.  If you want to behave like a civilized person, then do so, and you'll be able to use the platform.

[Chuychanga 133]

On 8/6/2018 at 12:12 PM, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

Doesn't he know you can get a ticket for this in Austin?  At least he's not in the left lane.  

[Brisketexan 104604]

12 minutes ago, SpiralOut said:

And your argument just makes no sense.  There are nutjobs on the right like Jones.  Yet, in your mind, there are hardly any nutjobs on the left?  Or are they just technically illiterate and don't understand how to make YT videos or post to Facebook?  Or could it be you're just biased towards them and against the right so you're conveniently willing to overlook their transgressions?

Let's translate this to someplace where we have a clear and understandable track record: talk radio.  Right wing talk radio has FLOURISHED.  The left tried to create a version of it....and it was DOA.  There just isn't that much of an audience for a leftist version of Rush Limbaugh, or Alex Jones.  

Hell, look at the poster of your first "shapeshifting" video...and look at the rest of his content.  It's either random nutbar stuff, or satire....which in either case, generates a mere handful of views.  Look at the number of views on an Infowars vid -- they were into the millions.

Yes, I AM saying that wild-ass conspiracy theory derangement, including shit like calling Sandy Hook parents crisis actors and part of a false flag operation (Jones ain't alone in that regard) are MUCH more prevalent and consumed on the right than on the left.  That's an objective truth.  Page views tells you that.

[Chooky 13302]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this -- Target doesn't have a policy of banning nazis, or antifa, or dems, or repubs.  It has a policy of banning people who disrupt the retail environment and make it unpleasant and less-used by other patrons.

So, if you walk into Target and start yelling "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!", and they kick your ass out, they didn't kick you out because of your views.  They kicked you out because you were an asshole shitting on their patrons and fucking up the product they are selling.  Had you walked in yelling "FUCK NAZIS! PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE!" over and over, I'm expecting you'd be kicked out, too.

Twitter, for example, banned over 377,000 pro-terrorist accounts in just the last six months of 2016.  For these assholes today to claim they are unique is fucking rich.

These platforms have content-neutral standards with regard to out and out hate speech, threats, and defamation.  They've cut a LOT of slack to these assholes -- too much, and now they've gotten used to is.  Tough shit.  If you want to behave like a civilized person, then do so, and you'll be able to use the platform.

Blah blah blah.  I get it.  But why can't I go to Cinnabon and shout the N-word?  What about my freedom?

[Brisketexan 104604]

8 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Blah blah blah.  I get it.  But why can't I go to Cinnabon and shout the N-word?  What about my freedom?

Oh, you definitely can shout that at Cinnabon....I'd just scrape off the "icing" you get on your cinnamon roll after that.  Words of advice, take em or leave em.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Brisketexan

[SpiralOut 1809]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Let's translate this to someplace where we have a clear and understandable track record: talk radio.  Right wing talk radio has FLOURISHED.  The left tried to create a version of it....and it was DOA.  There just isn't that much of an audience for a leftist version of Rush Limbaugh, or Alex Jones.

The olds vote Republican.  The olds are the only people who still listen to regular radio.  I could flip your argument around by mentioning how leftist politics has FLOURISHED on late-night TV with the likes of Colbert, Kimmel, etc. 

Also, isn't it odd how all of these corporations considered people like Jones A-OK while Trump was just a goofball on TV and Obama was in office?  They had no problem profiting off them then.  It's only with the rise of Trump and the increasing popularity of idiots like Jones that now something needs to be done.  Funny how that works.

But it's all position-neutral policies, right?  These policies have been in place for years, they just happen to be kicking in now in the Age of Trump.  You gonna try and sell me some ocean front property in Arizona for your next trick, Brisket? 

Personally, I'm all for people, ya know, acting like adults.  If someone says some stupid, awful shit you either ridicule them or ignore it.  Silencing them just gives them credibility while also setting you up to be silenced in the future. 

Edited August 7, 2018 by SpiralOut

[Brisketexan 104604]

8 minutes ago, SpiralOut said:

These policies have been in place for years, they just happen to be kicking in now in the Age of Trump.  You gonna try and sell me some ocean front property in Arizona for your next trick, Brisket? 

I'll cite you to Twitter deleting 377,000 terrorism-sympathetic accounts in just one six-month period.  Alex Jones is far from the first account to be banned.  He won't be the last.  If you want to cite Youtube to a SPECIFIC "leftist" account that you believe is violating their TOS in a similar manner, do so -- cite us to it, and inform the platform.  If there's a leftist equivalent of Alex Jones, behaving in a similar manner, I sure as shit won't have any problem with that account being flushed.

There's a difference between WHAT you believe and HOW you behave.  There are perfectly civilized and rational conservative accounts that have long-existed, and will continue to exist.  Because they behave like decent human beings, and follow the terms of service.  When the National Review gets banned, call me.  When Alex Jones is your "canary in a coal mine," I'm not going to worry much.

[Mole 4320]

16 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Mole, I agree the traditional media outlets isn't an iron clad analogy.  This is more like they have chosen not to carry his products in their store, or they have chosen to ban him from coming into their store anymore.  If Target quit carrying Martha Stewart's widgets would you be as concerned?  He was offering a product for sale (cheap), and some of his retailers has decided they'd rather not sell his shit anymore.  He can still sell direct, and those who were interested in his message can simply buy direct now.  Hell, he can put it all behind a paywall and charge something for it now, so financially it could even be a good thing.

2

Maybe this where the disconnect is. I tend to see information and ideas as something more than a commodity. We have a much greater responsibility to get this right than we do getting the right desk lamps in Target. There might be a line where removing someone from every major social media platform would be a public good long-term, but it makes me very uncomfortable. This probably isn't the start of a dystopian hellscape, but those movies tend to start with similar moves. 

I'd bet that this will be a positive financially for Alex Jones - I'd bet his believers are now fully committed true believers - but I think we should look at this beyond Alex Jones. He already has his platform. If I put a giant chalkboard in my front yard and invited everyone to write whatever they want on it, I'd still have the right to erase whatever I want since it's my chalkboard. If over time, my chalkboard became the primary/only source of local information in my little town, my right to erase would become pretty powerful. If I then banned someone and told them they are free to buy their own chalkboard, I'd have that right, but I would have essentially silenced them. I don't see that as a positive even if no one's rights were violated. 

And if this is the beginning of the end of reptilian shape-shifter conspiracy videos, the world just got a little darker.

[Hiphopopotamos 20865]

 

[Chooky 13302]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, you definitely can shout that at Cinnabon....I'd just scrape off the "icing" you get on your cinnamon roll after that.  Words of advice, take em or leave em.

Where can I go to revel in my hard-earned freedom to say disparaging things about Eskimos?