By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

 

Frogs are...

gay 22 62.86%
 
straight 13 37.14%
 
Total:35
contestgamer on 07 August 2018
Alara317 said:
DonFerrari said:

It doesn't have to do with being widespread.

It have to do with PUBLIC access. It doesn't really jump from government owned to private ownership (like people confusing it with someone entering your house or pub to break it or bad mouth you)

It's like, on the company you work there are fences and you can't enter, but very unlikely an university campus even if private will be locked out. Or hospital, lock your door and forbid people from even entering the premises and see how it work.

This just seems like the confusion made in another thread were public meant free and private meant paid.

Anyone can walk into a Wal Mart or McDonalds, but if you think they're not gonna be booted when they start yelling at customers about their conspiracy theories, then you're sadly mistaken. How is facebook any different aside from it being digital? 

If you hosted a forum and someone joined said forum and were spouting the values of the KKK, would you ban them or would you shrug and go, "Welp, free speech says I have to let them say their things!" No, you wouldn't (Unless you agreed with that racist rant or your website was a KKK website...) 

Furthermore, if I walked into your house and started shouting at your kids about how we needed to eradicate the jews, and that their unwillingness to participate in cleansing was going to have the government send hit squads after them, you'd boot me right out your front door (and if you were American, probably shoot me). 

Facebook, Apple, Youtube, and any other internet website - no matter how easily accessed by the public or widespread or easy to get an account - are not obligated to allow anyone to use their platform to get their message out. If they decide they don't agree with Alex Jones and don't want him using their platforms to spread his beliefs, then that's their choice. Nobody's free speech is being trampled on because a platform holder decided to not allow their platform to be used to spread hate speech. 

I'm honestly quite shocked that there are so few people who actually understand this. What is so hard to grasp? Freedom of speech doesn't start and stop with racist rants and doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say. If something you said makes a company not want to associate with you, then too bad for you. Shouldn't have said it. 

Why make this assumption? There is such a thing as principle and someone could allow a racist on their forum, despite disagreeing with them, in order to protect their ability to exercise their speech.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 07 August 2018
Alara317 said:
DonFerrari said:

It doesn't have to do with being widespread.

It have to do with PUBLIC access. It doesn't really jump from government owned to private ownership (like people confusing it with someone entering your house or pub to break it or bad mouth you)

It's like, on the company you work there are fences and you can't enter, but very unlikely an university campus even if private will be locked out. Or hospital, lock your door and forbid people from even entering the premises and see how it work.

This just seems like the confusion made in another thread were public meant free and private meant paid.

Anyone can walk into a Wal Mart or McDonalds, but if you think they're not gonna be booted when they start yelling at customers about their conspiracy theories, then you're sadly mistaken. How is facebook any different aside from it being digital? 

If you hosted a forum and someone joined said forum and were spouting the values of the KKK, would you ban them or would you shrug and go, "Welp, free speech says I have to let them say their things!" No, you wouldn't (Unless you agreed with that racist rant or your website was a KKK website...) 

Furthermore, if I walked into your house and started shouting at your kids about how we needed to eradicate the jews, and that their unwillingness to participate in cleansing was going to have the government send hit squads after them, you'd boot me right out your front door (and if you were American, probably shoot me). 

Facebook, Apple, Youtube, and any other internet website - no matter how easily accessed by the public or widespread or easy to get an account - are not obligated to allow anyone to use their platform to get their message out. If they decide they don't agree with Alex Jones and don't want him using their platforms to spread his beliefs, then that's their choice. Nobody's free speech is being trampled on because a platform holder decided to not allow their platform to be used to spread hate speech. 

I'm honestly quite shocked that there are so few people who actually understand this. What is so hard to grasp? Freedom of speech doesn't start and stop with racist rants and doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say. If something you said makes a company not want to associate with you, then too bad for you. Shouldn't have said it. 

If they call the police and police removes the ones shouting probably zero issue for Walmart. If they decide to forcefully take the person from the establishment they certainly will have problem. What if they put a placard saying anyone using any piece of clothe talking bad about trump or any symbol used by minorities movements do you think they won't get issues?

If I had a forum I certainly wouldn't ban someone based on their side of the spectrum (just go and look at what type of page gets more ban on similar breach of TOS. I'll give you a hint, if on FB you make a racial slur you get banned, if you encorage people to kill cops no ban... seems like a joke is more harmeful than inciting violence and death).

Houses again are very very very different from public places. Even if you were on my house entrance/walkway (which in Brazil you pay taxes but is public, not sure in USA) shouting at me and my family you wouldn't get protected by 1st ammendment and probably would be arrested for public disturbance.

He is making videos that people decide to open or not. He isn't yelling and hitting people on public square. So a lot of these comparisons become very funny.

What is so hard to understand seems on your part on not seeing double standard and these services themselves breaching their TOS and no being neutral and defenders of freedom of speech as they claim.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

NightDragon83 on 07 August 2018

Alex Jones should immediately rebrand himself and do nothing but bash white people, Christians, Republicans / conservatives, etc... he'll have a shiny new job at the NYT, fully "verified" social media accounts on all platforms without fear of being suspended, and either a Netflix / Amazon / Hulu series or a prime time slot on CNN / MSNBC within a week.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Alara317 on 07 August 2018
contestgamer said:

Why make this assumption? There is such a thing as principle and someone could allow a racist on their forum, despite disagreeing with them, in order to protect their ability to exercise their speech.

You really aren't willing to listen, are you? 

I just...there's so much wrong with this comment from the misunderstanding of what free speech is to how it's protected and everything in between that I hardly know where to start. 

If you so chose to allow a raving lunatic racist to use your forum, that's your decision. I personally think it would be a dumb decision, but it's your forum or your platform and therefore your choice. But don't dare act like giving someone a platform is somehow helping to 'protect' free speech. Free speech was not ever in danger. Unless the government is getting involved, this is not a matter of free speech. That is (or should be) the end of the discussion. Free speech has nothing to do with other people or companies treating you different for the abhorrent things you say. 

Stop using the term free speech. This issue has nothing to do with free speech. You are using a false equivalency by using the term free speech to describe actions taken in response to public perception. 



Alara317 on 07 August 2018
NightDragon83 said:
Alex Jones should immediately rebrand himself and do nothing but bash white people, Christians, Republicans / conservatives, etc... he'll have a shiny new job at the NYT, fully "verified" social media accounts on all platforms without fear of being suspended, and either a Netflix / Amazon / Hulu series or a prime time slot on CNN / MSNBC within a week.

Absolutely nothing about this is correct, but if we assume that this wasn't the ranting lunacy of a madman....

...then that's up to the New York Times. That's how this shit works. I wouldn't agree with it then, but if that's what the general public believes (that hating white people is okay), then sadly that's just what the public perception will be. I'm not saying that it's right, but if someone has that opinion and a host that supports them, I will simply chose not to support that host. 

Why is this so complicated for so many of you? 



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 07 August 2018
Alara317 said:
contestgamer said:

Why make this assumption? There is such a thing as principle and someone could allow a racist on their forum, despite disagreeing with them, in order to protect their ability to exercise their speech.

You really aren't willing to listen, are you? 

I just...there's so much wrong with this comment from the misunderstanding of what free speech is to how it's protected and everything in between that I hardly know where to start. 

If you so chose to allow a raving lunatic racist to use your forum, that's your decision. I personally think it would be a dumb decision, but it's your forum or your platform and therefore your choice. But don't dare act like giving someone a platform is somehow helping to 'protect' free speech. Free speech was not ever in danger. Unless the government is getting involved, this is not a matter of free speech. That is (or should be) the end of the discussion. Free speech has nothing to do with other people or companies treating you different for the abhorrent things you say. 

Stop using the term free speech. This issue has nothing to do with free speech. You are using a false equivalency by using the term free speech to describe actions taken in response to public perception. 

I like how you ignore that there is a new view that says Constitution made so much effort in preventing government to abuse you that it oppeened a lot for corporations to do it (not that I agree with government control over them)



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 07 August 2018
Alara317 said:
NightDragon83 said:
Alex Jones should immediately rebrand himself and do nothing but bash white people, Christians, Republicans / conservatives, etc... he'll have a shiny new job at the NYT, fully "verified" social media accounts on all platforms without fear of being suspended, and either a Netflix / Amazon / Hulu series or a prime time slot on CNN / MSNBC within a week.

Absolutely nothing about this is correct, but if we assume that this wasn't the ranting lunacy of a madman....

...then that's up to the New York Times. That's how this shit works. I wouldn't agree with it then, but if that's what the general public believes (that hating white people is okay), then sadly that's just what the public perception will be. I'm not saying that it's right, but if someone has that opinion and a host that supports them, I will simply chose not to support that host. 

Why is this so complicated for so many of you? 

Absolutely nothing he is saying is correct? Are you sure? Just look here 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237180&page=1#



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

MrWayne on 07 August 2018
Aeolus451 said:

Both the US or EU are big enough that any laws they impose on the internet will affect the world. The constitution can be amended and new laws made. I'm making an argument for freedom of speech laws to be extended to political speech on social media. The internet and social media didn't exist then but if it did, it would have been included under what's covered  with free speech especially with political speech.  The first amendment was created because we believe in freedom of speech as a principal and any laws created to protect it should be adapted to what's happening in the present.

Alot of businesses were regulated because they became integral to society. It has nothing to do with a monopoly in the way you mean that. They are important in how we communicate with everyone worldwide and recreating another social media that widely used or big is near impossible. I disagree with you on everything.

But isn't the first amendment exactly working as intended? Basically, Alex Jones is in the situation of someone living in a small town in the 19th century. If the only newspaper in this town fires you, you're fucked, the same thing when the only saloon in town gives you a house ban. In such a case the first amendment doesn't help you in the 19th century nor in the 21st century.



LurkerJ on 07 August 2018
DonFerrari said:
LurkerJ said:
We should start reporting Quran videos uploaded on YouTube for violating hate speech content. Let's see how that goes.

You islamophobe.

Yeah but shouldn't we be phobic against ideologies that promote sexism and homophobia?

Peh said:
LurkerJ said:

We should start reporting Quran videos uploaded on YouTube for violating hate speech rules. Let's see how that goes.

If they are indeed hate speech go on and report them. 

Phrases promoting sexism, homophobia and eternal punishment for non-Muslims in the Quran and many other religious scriptures are plenty. Why are they allowed on those same platforms that just banned Alex Jones? The amount of hatred spread by Alex is minuscule to that spread by religions, especially Islam in this day and age.

This is just the beginning of a slippery slope, sure, Alex is an ass and everyone is happy now, but I am sure I will not be when my fave political commentators get banned next because they don't blend or believe every piece of news reported by the corporate media. 



Mr Puggsly on 07 August 2018
Flilix said:

Finally. It's just disgusting how this guy made a fortune out the paranoia and social weakness of his viewers.

Agreed, I'm sick of TYT.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)