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

free speech does not mean that a private platform is obligated to give you a platform... some of you really have a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is about
alex has his own private channels for broadcasting... now if those were shut down i'd be urging the militias to grab their guns and start making moves but that's not what this is

 

for example, jut the other day on this platform i got banned for posting a meme, while personally i thought that was a bit ridiculous, i understand that i'm using a service that belongs to someone else and i therefore have to abide by their rules

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 06 August 2018

Around the Network
Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:
they are private companies... so they can do whatever they want

Not exactly whatever they want. But removing videos/podcasts isn't against the law. Especially not when they're violating site user agreements.

the point i'm making is that they are not obligated to provide a platform to anyone



TranceformerFX said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean, you could say it's censorship. It's just not censorship of free speech guaranteed by the government, since all those sites are privately owned. 

Wrong. You can buy stock from Apple and Facebook. What the hell are you taking about?

Private in the sense that it isn't a corporation that's regulated by the government. It is a capitalistic business that's allowed to regulate their content in order to preserve their own reputation that just so happens to have stock options available for public consumers. 



 

 

i wouldn't say facebook, google etc are against free speech just yet... but they are starting to tilt in that direction because of pressure from leftists who are too dumb to understand that when they cave EVERYONE is going to be in trouble



o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

Not exactly whatever they want. But removing videos/podcasts isn't against the law. Especially not when they're violating site user agreements.

the point i'm making is that they are not obligated to provide a platform to anyone

I know. I've just seen the "whatever they want" thing mentioned a few times, and I think some misconception from that lead to a comparison with another private company where anti discrimination laws came into question.

Last edited by Hiku - on 06 August 2018

Around the Network
Smartie900 said:
TranceformerFX said:

Wrong. You can buy stock from Apple and Facebook. What the hell are you taking about?

Private in the sense that it isn't a corporation that's regulated by the government. It is a capitalistic business that's allowed to regulate their content in order to preserve their own reputation that just so happens to have stock options available for public consumers. 

 

Don't use the word "Private" because that denotes a company in which you can't buy shares/stock from.

 

Wikipedia:

privately held companyprivate company, or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock(shares) to the general public on the stock marketexchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. More ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

 

Just because this is a video game forum doesn't mean we can skew the cut & dry definition of what it factually means to be a "private" company.

No - Facebook, Google (YouTube), Apple are NOT private companies. Just because they're not government owned doesn't mean they're private. You guys are spreading misinformation.




Big mistake. He will just go underground now. Nobody will be there to fact check him or point out his ridiculousness, creating an echo chamber. Kind of like the marxists in academia.



TranceformerFX said:
Smartie900 said:

Private in the sense that it isn't a corporation that's regulated by the government. It is a capitalistic business that's allowed to regulate their content in order to preserve their own reputation that just so happens to have stock options available for public consumers. 

 

Don't use the word "Private" because that denotes a company in which you can't buy shares/stock from.

 

Wikipedia:

privately held companyprivate company, or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock(shares) to the general public on the stock marketexchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. More ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

 

Just because this is a video game forum doesn't mean we can skew the cut & dry definition of what it factually means to be a "private" company.

No - Facebook, Google (YouTube), Apple are NOT private companies. Just because they're not government owned doesn't mean they're private. You guys are spreading misinformation.


you are correct they are public companies... but the fact remains that alex jones owns none of them and their owners or majority share holders have made the decision to kick him off



TranceformerFX said:
Smartie900 said:

Private in the sense that it isn't a corporation that's regulated by the government. It is a capitalistic business that's allowed to regulate their content in order to preserve their own reputation that just so happens to have stock options available for public consumers. 

 

Don't use the word "Private" because that denotes a company in which you can't buy shares/stock from.

 

Wikipedia:

privately held companyprivate company, or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock(shares) to the general public on the stock marketexchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. More ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

 

Just because this is a video game forum doesn't mean we can skew the cut & dry definition of what it factually means to be a "private" company.

No - Facebook, Google (YouTube), Apple are NOT private companies. Just because they're not government owned doesn't mean they're private. You guys are spreading misinformation.


Wikipedia:

"In the broadest sense, the term private corporation refers to any business not owned by the state."

There are different insinuations to the word "private". Considering the fact that this entire discussion is based around the fact whether or not Alex Jones is being denied his right to the 1st Amendment, it can be assumed that the word "private" refers whether or not they're regulated by the government or not. I don't think availability of stocks is really relevant in this discussion.



 

 

Hiku said:

Just so people are aware of how Alex Jones violated Youtube policies (aside from hate speech or harassment, etc), Alex Jones was suspended from Livestreaming on Youtube for 90 days. He can try to appeal his case with Youtube if he wants during those 90 days, but he is not allowed to stream. And Youtube have rules in place to pervent larger channels from circumventing this by for example live streaming on a different account... which is exactly what Alex Jones did.

He live streamed from a different account. And Youtube delete your channel if you do things like this.

irstupid said: 
1.) My problem with this is the size of said platforms. This isn't like VGChartz banning someone, this is the tech giants. They are like the public forums. If you are banned from them, you are essentially silenced.

2.) The argument of "it is a private business and not government and thus not infringing upon the 1st amendment" sounds like an argument I hear when someone says they should be able to not have to serve gays at their restaurant, or similar. It is their private business, they should be able to serve who they want, right?

1.) So if I start a private company and host user uploaded videos, if my company grows to a certain size, I should be forced to host certain videos?
And who would force me to do this/enforce this? The government?

You're also not addressing the fact that Infowars were banned for violating terms of service agreements. I posted one example above.
I can't upload a video containing copyright material, or a video of someone getting lynched, without it getting taken down, or my channel getting deleted.
I agree to this when I sign up on Youtube.

2.) Anti discrimination laws (in regards to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information), apply to the workplace. If they didn't, we'd still have restaurants with "No black people allowed" signs outside.
And even if Youtube is a privately owned business, they're not allowed to say "No black people are allowed to host videos on our site". Get it?

So no, it's not the same.
The difference is these people didn't break any general rules of conduct, like Infowars did. They were simply denied because of their skincolor, or who they love, etc.
On top of that, even a privately owned restaurant (usually) is on land that the government allows private citizens to have so that they can serve their community.

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?