Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones. UPDATE: Twitter PERMANENTLY suspends him

[The def star]

13 minutes ago, atom631 said:

and there it is. i guess we will see what happens from here. i dont mind not seeing alex jones anymore and i hope this ruins him..but i just wish it didnt come about in his fashion. 

 

however, if it works to silence him..then maybe i am wrong. 

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/youtube-removes-alex-jones-account-following-earlier-bans.html

Him being taking off YouTube is a long time coming. He has definitely violated their TOS. Plenty of videos and channels that have done the same as his have been taken down. What makes him different?

[Spork3245]

I get the point @atom631 is trying to make, but, like the majority of you, I strongly disagree with it. Free speech has limitations, as it should. Just like you cannot yell “fire!” in a movie theater, places like Infowars sole purpose was/is seemingly to monetize misinformation and distrust - yes, at a base level that’s a far cry from the comparison of shouting “fire!” in a crowded area, however, that misinformation and distrust perpetuated by places like Infowars eventually leads to (and has lead to) the creation of a level of disorder and potentially violence (death threats to Sandyhook parents, the pizza-gate guy, etc) that arguably becomes comparable to yelling “fire!”... IMO, at least.

[atom631]

3 minutes ago, The def star said:

Him being taking off YouTube is a long time coming. He has definitely violated their TOS. Plenty of videos and channels that have done the same as his have been taken down. What makes him different?

 

i was really just hoping the thing that took him down was being caught giving fellatio to a frog. 

[TwinIon]

10 minutes ago, atom631 said:

and there it is. i guess we will see what happens from here. i dont mind not seeing alex jones anymore and i hope this ruins him..but i just wish it didnt come about in his fashion. 

 

 however, if it works to silence him..then maybe i am wrong. 

  

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/youtube-removes-alex-jones-account-following-earlier-bans.html

I understand you don't like Jones, so I'm curious what you would consider a "win" here.

 

Obviously he won't be completely silent, but from some quick googling around it seems about standard that a typical video will get views in the range of ~15% of it's subscriber count. For Jone's 2.4M subs, that means about ~360k views. Since the channel is down, it's hard to see it's stats, but you can see some overall here. It also seems that subscribers will only account for a minority of actual views. Creators report something like 25% of views come from subscribers. For Jones, who was getting ~20-30M views per month, even if his views skew very heavily towards his built in audience and 50% of his views come from subs, that means he was getting something like 10 million views per month from people who didn't follow him. Youtube is such a dominant player that when Jones moves his content to another smaller site, it's highly unlikely he will be able to convert a high percentage of those views to his next platform.

 

Between even just Facebook and Youtube, that means that there are literally millions of people that will would have seen his headlines and read or watched his videos that will not see them anymore. He'll still get millions of views and millions more hits, but that's a real win in my book.

[The def star]

3 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

i was really just hoping the thing that took him down was being caught giving fellatio to a frog. 

He has been caught admitting saying his show is a sham in front of a judge. I don't think him giving a bj to frog will deter his base from following. If anything it might get him a bigger base

[Ghost_MH]

5 minutes ago, The def star said:

Him being taking off YouTube is a long time coming. He has definitely violated their TOS. Plenty of videos and channels that have done the same as his have been taken down. What makes him different?

 

The size of his user base and how many of them find themselves among mainstream conservatives. Facebook and YouTube, Facebook especially, have been tripping over themselves to not come across as partisan one way or the other. The issue is that the most mainstream of these sites like Infowars are primarily right-wing. Swatting them all down as they should have ages ago would come across as right-wing targeting, so they've avoided doing just that. Also, the ad revenue doesn't hurt. That's just emboldened these guys and, as a result, they've cranked their rhetoric up passed 11. Since then, the social media giants have just been sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone to make a move so the rest can follow along and that's what's happening here.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

Trump should go on infowars again

[MarSolo]

33 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Trump should go on infowars again

 

I’m actually waiting for Trump to comment on it. He needs to distract from openly admitting collusion. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

47 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Just like you cannot yell “fire!” in a movie theater...

Ahem.

[Spork3245]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Ahem.

 

Thanks for posting that (seriously) as I was being unintentionally vague.

 

Quote

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

 

Which is why I stated:

58 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

leads to the creation of a level of disorder and potentially violence

 

I’m fully aware that criminal intent must be proven, I was just giving a potential limitation and probably should have better clarified instead of continuing that myth. I’m also aware that if pizza-gate guy did kill someone at the business, it would’ve indeed been extremely difficult to put blame unto Infowars/Alex Jones from a legal standpoint.

[legend]

I mean, lets just be clear.

 

The alternative being proposed is that Facebook should be legally prohibited from regulating who can use its service even when the users in question clearly propagate harmful misinformation? Really? Is that the alternative we think is better?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 hours ago, atom631 said:

not a fan of this. I know Alex Jones is a fucking moron...but suppressing freedom of speech is a slippery slope.

 

maybe create a category called "Conspiracy Theory Entertainment" and throw him and other like him in there. Maybe even add a disclaimer of some sort too, 

They're not the government, nor did this under government direction. It is NOT a freedom of speech issue. It is whether they have the right to refuse a service to him or not. 

[TwinIon]

30 minutes ago, legend said:

I mean, lets just be clear.

 

The alternative being proposed is that Facebook should be legally prohibited from regulating who can use its service even when the users in question clearly propagate harmful misinformation? Really? Is that the alternative we think is better?

The disingenuous first amendment argument increasingly being put forward is that people have a right to an audience. You should have a right to speak on a campus or have your content hosted by private company. I don't think they actually think through the legal ramifications that such an interpretation would incur. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Just now, TwinIon said:

The disingenuous first amendment argument increasingly being put forward is that people have a right to an audience. You should have a right to speak on a campus or have your content hosted by private company. I don't think they actually think through the legal ramifications that such an interpretation would incur. 

Republicans not thinking about the ramifications of their short sighted mouth diarrhea? 

 

First I've heard of it. They're usually so calm, measured, rational, forward thinking, analytical, and not treasonous in any way. 

[legend]

8 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

The disingenuous first amendment argument increasingly being put forward is that people have a right to an audience. You should have a right to speak on a campus or have your content hosted by private company. I don't think they actually think through the legal ramifications that such an interpretation would incur. 

 

I personally find the freedom of speech appeal as some fundamental knock out a non-starter anyway. That "right" does not exist on its own as some natural force of reality. We imposed it as a law because we think it's useful for society to prosper. If appealing to it as as an absolute is *not* useful, merely appealing to "freedom of speech" does nothing to justify the position that Facebook et al., banning IW is bad.

 

And fortunately, our laws in place are not some absolute imposed even on private products, so we don't even have to change something fundamental about our laws to be in favor of the ban.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

the memories

[marioandsonic]

11 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Trump should go on infowars again

Please let Trump tweet about this.  Pleeeeeeeease.

[Spork3245]

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Alpha1Cowboy]

To me it’s more the damage he and his ilk due to people who are not critical thinkers.  They have an idea of something and he gives them a fully fleshed out version that helps fit the narrative they need.  Talk amongst his listeners becomes one big circle jerk just like the Q anon crap and further makes the issue worse.  

 

Just finished reading “Germans into Nazi’s” again and there are a lot of parallels with a society of group think.  I’ve got liberals friends who accuse me of being a rightwing Nazi.....and i’ve Got conservative family and friends who think I’m drinking the socialist kool aid.  In order to debate or have a discussion they have to pin an exact label on me and then take aim instead of just focusing on one issue.

[SuperSpreader]

It's cause you're on the spectrum buddy. 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[HGLatinBoy]

What prompted this ban wave?

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, HGLatinBoy said:

What prompted this ban wave?

 

Public pressure and sucking, the former brought about due to the defamation trial from the Sandy Hook parents.

[HGLatinBoy]

timeline of events?

 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, HGLatinBoy said:

timeline of events?

 

 

Defamation trial -> Public Pressure -> Bans.

[RedSoxFan9]

Facebook needed a good distraction from their other controversies 

[SuperSpreader]

25 minutes ago, HGLatinBoy said:

What prompted this ban wave?

Collusion

[PaladinSolo]

Publicly owning yourself to own the libs.

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

Publicly owning yourself to own the libs.

 

 

 

Holy fucking shit that is the dumbest thing I've seen/read all day. GLORIOUS. PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY = UNDER GOVERNMENT FIRST SPEECH RIGHTS 

 

[SaysWho?]

20 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Holy fucking shit that is the dumbest thing I've seen/read all day. GLORIOUS. PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY = UNDER GOVERNMENT FIRST SPEECH RIGHTS 

 

 

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

this is the best part of ring wingers getting banned

[RedSoxFan9]

 

change your screen name to Elon Musk = ban

[Jason]

Alex Jones Is Shirtlessly Screaming Into the Void on Popular Social Network Google+

[RedSoxFan9]