• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Alex Jones be Banned?

Should Alex Jones be banned from Social Media for offensive content?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 41 62.1%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Total voters
    66
Oceanborn said:
Facebook claims it was taken down for glorifying violence and using "dehumanizing language" to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants which facebook describes as hate speech. The other platforms basically said the same thing. I just find it interesting that they mention "glorifying violence" as a reason for his ban when other people and groups have done this and not been censored and banned. Also, who decides what is "dehumanizing"? Merely supporting strong borders, by some standards, may fall into that category. If he made separate, fake accounts and that was the reason for his ban then he earned it. I didn't see where they mentioned that. I do not see how Jones used his politics as a shield to avoid being banned.
Click to expand...
You should get one of those Republican techy guys to set up a competing website for right wing views. Total money maker. Show us the superiority of right wing economic policies. Survival of the fittest.....

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
You people who voted yes should really reconsider your thought process....
 
Oceanborn said:
I do not like Alex Jones, for the record. It's not even his message that irritates me as much as he does. I hate his voice and his sloppy, unkept appearance. However, the precedent set by deleting his platform is a great concern to me. Who is next? Sometimes I watch Paul Joseph Watson- a member of Infowars- is he next? Sargon of Akkad? Lauren Southern? Whether you like them or hate them, do they not have a right to a platform? The leftists who either supported the ban, or outright ban conservatives will argue that these are private companies who can ban whoever they wish- however, these companies now have a monopoly on social media content. I find it strange that Spotify, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Facebook deleted the Infowars page at 3 in the morning. And this wasn't about "fake news" it was about Infowars supposedly breaking community guidelines for hate speech. They cited specifically Jone's videos on mass migration and called it Islamophobic. This is lib-speak for "disagreed with our new progressive morality."

Everyone who is celebrating: you could be next. If you are not left of Michael Moore, perhaps you are too far right. It is now up to the globalist-social media corporations to control freedom of speech. Twitter hasn't banned Infowars yet, but they will I'm certain. Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here?

Americans need to stand up for the freedoms they have left before it's gone. Banning unpopular or even outright obnoxious opinions is a dangerous precedent. Read 1984...
Click to expand...

I had to finally look up Alex Jones on Google. To my knowledge never heard or seen him. From what I read though it seems he is more a kook than right-wing. After all if he thinks that the government was part of 9/11 how can he be a republican as Bush was president at the time.

Not sure what he says that are violent but then again I don't know fully what he says. The point here seems to be that we now have a handful of media Oligarchs that get to control what we read. Not much different than the last hundred years, except now it is not newspaper or TV Oligarchs but Social Media Oligarchs.
 
They are PUBLIC UTILITIES. They should not ban people..even Louis Farrakhan who calls for blacks to kill whites. Jones has a HUGE following and is a bit of a kook, but he does expose govt corruption as well. He was banned for his influence...they are scared of him and the millions that follow him. Sort of like Truth Telling Govt Corruption exposing Ed Snowden had to flee to Russia. Sad.

Embarrass Obama....flee for your life. Sick
 
Oceanborn said:
The rules should be specific because of the subjective nature of what could be considered "dehumanizing." That's all I'm saying. Obviously every single example can't be spelled out...

I'm glad to see you admit that both sides play the victim card.
Click to expand...

Dehumanizing is not something that can be specifically spelled out for every instance. And I'd say that depicting an adult hitting/punching a child (which was reported one of the posted videos did) is pretty despicable and can easily violate a number of the posted rules by all the sites.
 
Vladimir Putin said:
They are PUBLIC UTILITIES. They should not ban people..even Louis Farrakhan who calls for blacks to kill whites. Jones has a HUGE following and is a bit of a kook, but he does expose govt corruption as well. He was banned for his influence...they are scared of him and the millions that follow him. Sort of like Truth Telling Govt Corruption exposing Ed Snowden had to flee to Russia. Sad.

Embarrass Obama....flee for your life. Sick
Click to expand...

These are most definitely not "public utilities". You don't need Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc to live a decent life. In fact, many have given up or simply not joined these sites voluntarily. There are other forms of communication available.

The Internet could be considered a "utility" though, which is what we pay for (or at least a routable address to connect us) and Jones is not banned from it.
 
washunut said:
I had to finally look up Alex Jones on Google. To my knowledge never heard or seen him. From what I read though it seems he is more a kook than right-wing. After all if he thinks that the government was part of 9/11 how can he be a republican as Bush was president at the time.

Not sure what he says that are violent but then again I don't know fully what he says. The point here seems to be that we now have a handful of media Oligarchs that get to control what we read. Not much different than the last hundred years, except now it is not newspaper or TV Oligarchs but Social Media Oligarchs.
Click to expand...

So long as your access to his site is not blocked, they cannot control what you read. His sites are all still available.
 
itsforthekids said:
You people who voted yes should really reconsider your thought process....
Click to expand...

That kind of thing is just fine with the Trump administration. Thy want to regulate the way Google responds to search requests, for example.
 
Grand Mal said:
That kind of thing is just fine with the Trump administration. Thy want to regulate the way Google responds to search requests, for example.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh…..but alex jones IS blocked. Lefties have a way of skirting issues...being on the same side of all issues is apparently their strong point.
 
roguenuke said:
Dehumanizing is not something that can be specifically spelled out for every instance. And I'd say that depicting an adult hitting/punching a child (which was reported one of the posted videos did) is pretty despicable and can easily violate a number of the posted rules by all the sites.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's subjective and can be used to censor people those in control do not like. It's biased and has been proven so. Why can't liberals admit it? Facebook, google, Twitter are controlled by liberals and they censor conservatives. You won't acknowledge that. which is fine. Ultimately, government regulation is not needed if conservatives can have their own platforms without multi national billion dollar corporations buying practically every alternative platform. If that keeps happening, conservatives will have no place to post their opinions but the furthest reaches of the internet, far beyond the first or second page on google. And since 90% of people do not scroll past the second page, google's algorithm will be successful in keeping conservatives out of the way. Sensibilities will be protected and the globalist agenda can continue to spread like cancer.
 
Oceanborn said:
In other words, it's subjective and can be used to censor people those in control do not like. It's biased and has been proven so. Why can't liberals admit it? Facebook, google, Twitter are controlled by liberals and they censor conservatives. You won't acknowledge that. which is fine. Ultimately, government regulation is not needed if conservatives can have their own platforms without multi national billion dollar corporations buying practically every alternative platform. If that keeps happening, conservatives will have no place to post their opinions but the furthest reaches of the internet, far beyond the first or second page on google. And since 90% of people do not scroll past the second page, google's algorithm will be successful in keeping conservatives out of the way. Sensibilities will be protected and the globalist agenda can continue to spread like cancer.
Click to expand...

Companies have a right to be subjective, especially in such things.

Prove that they are systematically trying to actively silence/censor conservatives. The Internet doesn't work like that. Everything is "far reaching" or right at your fingertips. If people are not smart enough to know how to find info that I can find on the first page of Google or simply by putting in the name or context of the thing I want, then they probably shouldn't be on the Internet to begin with and stick with The 700 Club.
 
Should Alex Jones be banned by private companies? If that’s what those companies want, then sure.

Should Alex Jones be banned by the US government? No


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom