Quantcast
Locked: Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify Remove Alex Jones from their Platforms

Forums - Politics Discussion - Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify Remove Alex Jones from their Platforms

Frogs are...

gay 22 62.86%
 
straight 13 37.14%
 
Total:35
Hiku said:
DonFerrari said: 

Don't you follow their holier than thou attitude and what not?

Sorry, sure all companies reason for exisiting is profit, but if a company isn't based on values and follow them, they go down.

People them aren't even reading OP.

I don't know what holier than thou attitude you're referring to. I saw their statement regarding their policy on hate speech, child endangerment, and harassment. They specifically said they believe in representing a "wide range of views so long as *insert conditions*" Is that it?
You were talking about freedom of speech, while criticizing other posters for not considering it, so I'm asking you to clarify what it is you're referring to, and what your issue with it is, so that we can discuss it.

So what do you say when they don't ban pages that preach violence and death for police, men, white, etc? I know several pages that do it daily, had several people organized to do over 10k reports in a single day, and all have been replied with "it doesn't violate the terms of the service", even though it is very specific term talking against inciting criminal behavior and violence.

The whole net neutrality in Brazil sponsored include by those companies were because of freedom of speech and no government control (even if they want government to legislate saying it won't legislate).

I ask again, show the hundred of left wing pages sweep down in a single day by any of these platforms.

deskpro2k3 said:

Good, that guy is a nut job. Anything that incites violence, division, and hate content should be removed and banned.

Free speech isn't free of consequences. Here are the types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment:

  • Obscenity
  • Fighting words
  • Defamation (including libel and slander)
  • Child pornography
  • Perjury
  • Blackmail
  • Incitement to imminent lawless action
  • True threats
  • Solicitations to commit crimes
The Supreme Court should add treason to this list.
People that are saying that this violates his first amendment rights just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I think you know even less what freedom of speech is. Because one of the requests for freedom of speech is that is made public and the one saying it shows himself. Half or more of what you are putting there doesn't happen in the open, and movements like BLM have several of their claims made with something covering their faces.

o_O.Q said:
irstupid said:

It's a slipery slope.

I have a friend who was a bouncer at a bar and he said they refused to let anyone in who for instance had a baseball cap on backwards. Couldn't even just turn it around or take it off, you were pegged and until they forgot about you, you would be refused entry. They did that because people who wore their hat backwards were more likely to cause trouble at the bar. 

I'm sure you wouldn't have to search very far to find someone on the internet that would claim that doing so is racists.

So is the bar wrong for having a guideline about no backwards hats? Who decides what youtube/facebook/ect deems as inappropriate speech? The world has become so partisan/party affiliated that you will have the same people defending Rosseane attack Gunn, and vise versa solely because said person they deems as on "their side". Who determines what someone says on the internet is a joke, or not. Or is a hypothetical or not? 

i can't speak for anyone else but i do think businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever criteria they want, including race

i think discrimination laws, hate speech laws etc etc etc should all be thrown in the bin

for one thing, they don't actually change the views of the people they are pushed on (and there's loads of evidence that they actually make things worse)

As long as that company is open about its discrimination I don't bother as well, they may do as much as they want for whatever reason they choose. But these platforms aren't open about it, and public lie about their conduct, plus also break their own TOS depending on the side of the argument.

pokoko said:
I'm still amazed that there are people who do not understand that free speech does not apply to private forums.

The first stop of anyone defending Alex Jones should be to discuss why the things Alex Jones is accused of doing do not deserve the punishment that has been handed out. However, I've yet to see any of his defenders in this thread make a case whatsoever.

Honestly, the guy needs to reclassify as entertainment. It's just mind boggling that anyone takes him seriously. This is the guy that hinted Obama was actually a demon. A DEMON.

We had pages in Brazil saying Bolsonaro tortured children during the Military Government in the begining of it (1964), even though he was a 5 year old himself.

Chris Hu said:
Pemalite said:
Free speech has never entitled you to say whatever you desire without restriction, compromise or consequence anyway.

Personally I believe that anyone who propagates fake news, conspiracy theories and the like should be shut down, regardless of who it is... Left or Right wing. - But... It should also be done in a a more transparent manner, like a tribunal where these outlets can defend themselves with empirical evidence.

Left Wing outlets like "The Young Turks" should also be heavily scrutinized.

No they shouldn't nobody on the left is as crazy as Alex Jones.  The guy is insane snake oil salesman that does nothing more then tell lies, alternate facts and pushes crazy right wing conspiracy theories like pizza gate, frogs being turned gay by water, that Hillary is possessed by demons and other kind of crazy BS.

See the reply above.

Yes left wing have as much crazy guys as right wing. Or do you think a 5y old could be a military torturing child?

farlaff said:
DonFerrari said:
Took a single reply to have someone defending it kkkkk.

In Brazil the left wing also was defending a similar system. Facebook obviously had it interest in it as well.

Couple weeks ago FB banned hundred pages and profiles of right wing posters under a "hunt on fakenews", not a single left winged person or page was take down. But the left wing swears there was no bias on FB action.

What are you talking about? They removed MBL's pages, notorious for spreading hate and fake news. I'm not a left wing partisan, and I say you should stop posting biased and not true information.

If you aren't left wing I'm sure you can think of dozen of outlets that spread hate and fake news from the left side and didn't got banned.

I'll give one quite big, Quebrando Tabu.

Also you have no place on telling me to stop doing anything (even more when I'm not doing it, and at most your lack of knowledge is the reason you think I'm).

LiquorandGunFun said:
he is a dumbass, but the right to free speech doesnt stop at someones feelings.

there needs to be significant repercussions for these shit headed companies.

Don't say that... you don't have the right to say something that I may not like.

OdinHades said:
Next time I'm getting banned at vgchartz for saying that Xbox sucks or something, I will cry all day long about censorship, free speech and shit.

Seriously, get yourselves together.

You would be banned again for mod complaining =p

 

Like a month ago several newspaper decided to create a "consortium" to hunt fake news in Brazil to prevent it from influencing the election. Half the sponsors/participants were publishers of fake news from the left wing themselves, and would never acknowledge their own fake news.

And on the public interview for the presidential candidates they would take like 80% of the time to ask about things from 30 years in the past and also try to demonize the candidate.

But yes... only right wing have bad behavior. Some people are so blind that it's sad.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

To any Trump haters out there, I would be a bit slower in celebrating this.

The left media has worked so hard to lump in people they don't, such as Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others that when many people hear that Facebook banned Alex Jones, they will see it as the left banning just on the right.

I've never listend to or watched Alex Jones. I basically only know his name by people on the left screaming how bad of a person he is. I've heard enough about him to know he makes his money off of riling people up off of conspiracy theories and is an entertainer more so than any sort of newcaster. But still, I hear his name used whenever the media wants to try to label a person as super alt right. HIs name will be brought up with the others I listed above. Some of the others I know more from having seen or listened to some of their things.

The same will be true of many Americans. A big Shapiro fan will have been used to the Media lumping Shapiro and Jones together as both alt right lunatics. So what do you think they will be thinking when they hear Jones has been banned from many public forums? "How long until Shapiro is?" Hell Shapiro can hardly speak at a college university anymore because huge violent protests precede all of his events and they get cancelled.

Stuff like this may turn a bad person into a martyr.

Edit: Heck we already have people saying others should be banned like the Young Turks in retaliation. Some claim Jones told people to hurt others? Is that true? Did he actually tell people to harass others like Maxine Waters a representative did? Or did people who listen to him do that on their own accord? There is a big difference.

Last edited by irstupid - on 07 August 2018


The fact that that some net neutrality advocates use double standards about freedom of speech doesn't make net neutrality bad (as long as FCC just acts to grant users freedon to use, within the law, as they prefer the data traffic they paid for, and not to enforce state controls on them instead of corporate ones, while telcos would still be free to strike special deals with contents providers, they just shouldn't force this on the user side), it just makes them bad advocates.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

        

Wow. Some of the responses here...

The naivety of youth.

This is a very, VERY unsavoury move by these 'platforms'.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Ka-pi96 said:
Those two things aren't even close to being the same though...

Exactly. Extremely low reasoning skills by the OP!!

Net neutrality was about protecting the internet. There is no reason to be against net neutrality unless you are extremely dumb or you're an elected official entirely devoid of ethics and you are getting paid to permanently damage the internet (Republicans).

That has nothing to do with individual companies deciding they will no longer allow a guy goes around spewing hatred, conspiracy theories, and lies to spread that crap on their platforms. They have every right to kick him off and thank god they have. They aren't kicking him off for the color of his skin, his sexual orientation, his country of origin, or anything like that. They are kicking him off for the disgusting and vile nature of his content. They have every right to do that and they are doing a service to their communities by doing this.

Funny that Republicans think companies should be able to not do business with whoever they want and cry out in glee when some bigoted conservative business refuses someone for something like sexual orientation and then when one of your own gets refused for spreading lies and hate speech and in general being a disgusting a-hole suddenly you adopt the exact opposite position and think no one should ever be allowed to not do business with anyone and you lamely try to play the victim and make false equivalences (a republican specialty).



Around the Network
irstupid said:

To any Trump haters out there, I would be a bit slower in celebrating this.

The left media has worked so hard to lump in people they don't, such as Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others that when many people hear that Facebook banned Alex Jones, they will see it as the left banning just on the right.

I've never listend to or watched Alex Jones. I basically only know his name by people on the left screaming how bad of a person he is. I've heard enough about him to know he makes his money off of riling people up off of conspiracy theories and is an entertainer more so than any sort of newcaster. But still, I hear his name used whenever the media wants to try to label a person as super alt right. HIs name will be brought up with the others I listed above. Some of the others I know more from having seen or listened to some of their things.

The same will be true of many Americans. A big Shapiro fan will have been used to the Media lumping Shapiro and Jones together as both alt right lunatics. So what do you think they will be thinking when they hear Jones has been banned from many public forums? "How long until Shapiro is?" Hell Shapiro can hardly speak at a college university anymore because huge violent protests precede all of his events and they get cancelled.

Stuff like this may turn a bad person into a martyr.

Edit: Heck we already have people saying others should be banned like the Young Turks in retaliation. Some claim Jones told people to hurt others? Is that true? Did he actually tell people to harass others like Maxine Waters a representative did? Or did people who listen to him do that on their own accord? There is a big difference.

And you are totally right. Media lump together everyone right of the field together as maniacs and crazy.

kowenicki said:
Wow. Some of the responses here...

The naivety of youth.

This is a very, VERY unsavoury move by these 'platforms'.

No man, everything is fine, they are just banning a lunatic from the right that want left people killed for the lizard overlord they are...

These fair companies wouldn't ever ban someone because of their political view. And how dare you talk against the ban of this crazy man?

/jk



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Some of you make me sad for our future.

The misunderstanding of net neutrality.
The misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment.
The misunderstanding of Niemöller's poem.

I see how Trump, and others of the past, rose to power and I fear we will learn nothing...again.

Willful ignorance, ego, animosity. At war with logic, reason, compassion. How sad, how pitiful.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

DonFerrari said: 
pokoko said:
I'm still amazed that there are people who do not understand that free speech does not apply to private forums.

The first stop of anyone defending Alex Jones should be to discuss why the things Alex Jones is accused of doing do not deserve the punishment that has been handed out. However, I've yet to see any of his defenders in this thread make a case whatsoever.

Honestly, the guy needs to reclassify as entertainment. It's just mind boggling that anyone takes him seriously. This is the guy that hinted Obama was actually a demon. A DEMON.

We had pages in Brazil saying Bolsonaro tortured children during the Military Government in the begining of it (1964), even though he was a 5 year old himself.

I know absolutely nothing about the laws or political situation in Brazil and that's not what I'm talking about here.  If you want to talk about what happened in Brazil then you need to find someone with knowledge in that area.  I don't even know why you quoted me on this, as what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Edit:  Regarding Alex Jones, I DO want some transparency here.  I know none of these companies have to provide it to the public--it might even be a violation of their privacy rules, I don't know--but I want to know the specific incidents that caused the banning.  That's not to say he probably doesn't deserve it, given his past.  

Last edited by pokoko - on 07 August 2018

pokoko said:
DonFerrari said: 

We had pages in Brazil saying Bolsonaro tortured children during the Military Government in the begining of it (1964), even though he was a 5 year old himself.

I know absolutely nothing about the laws or political situation in Brazil and that's not what I'm talking about here.  If you want to talk about what happened in Brazil then you need to find someone with knowledge in that area.  I don't even know why you quoted me on this, as what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

You think it's absurd he put Obama as Demon. Likewise would be absurd for a 5y old to be in the military in Brazil torturing.

And there were also someone saying left wing doesn't make fakenews, and other saying that they don't go as crazy as right people... so I put the info together.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
pokoko said:

I know absolutely nothing about the laws or political situation in Brazil and that's not what I'm talking about here.  If you want to talk about what happened in Brazil then you need to find someone with knowledge in that area.  I don't even know why you quoted me on this, as what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

You think it's absurd he put Obama as Demon. Likewise would be absurd for a 5y old to be in the military in Brazil torturing.

And there were also someone saying left wing doesn't make fakenews, and other saying that they don't go as crazy as right people... so I put the info together.

Okay?  It's also absurd that whales can't move their eyes.  I fail to see your point.