• 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!

YouTube, Apple and Facebook remove content from InfoWars and Alex Jones

Lutherf said:
There is a certain irony with social media sites using their first amendment right to deny someone else their first amendment rights.

The ideological divide in America continues to grow in unhealthy ways.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. Are you sure you meant to say that FB denied someone their 1A rights? Or did you mean to say that FB enforced the rules to which every user submits and that no one lost any 1A rights because Alex Jones can find another way to post his hate and stupidity?
 
Buzz62 said:
No big surprise.
Jones is a bit of an opportunistic twit. But I'm usually OK with his gruff barking...until he opens up his little bag o' conspiracy tricks.
Really Alex? Reptiles???


Anyway...I've been saying since the '90's that internet censorship was inevitable.
Just too bad it had to start this way. I'd have rather the porn be trashed. That's truly disturbing.
Click to expand...

If you've ever looked at it, then you are part of the reason it's still there.
 
Mycroft said:
Hilarious?

No. This is blatant censorship by multiple private entities working in concert to erase someone from the internet. You should be alarmed.

Tell me, what would you say if, instead of Infowars, it was HuffPo...or the WSJ...or Wapo...or a Democratic President...Democratic Congressmen...that was removed from all of those sites? Would you accept that?
Click to expand...

Do you know what Infowars is and why it cannot be reasonably compared to any of the other actors you listed?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Censorship will save the day and the country. Censor, and Make America Great Again!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah because a private company enforcing it's user agreement is now considered "censoring" :roll:
 
Moon said:
I don't visit Infowars and don't care for Alex Jones, but it's always disturbing when sites are silenced due to their ideology. It may not be the government doing it, but it's still censorship.
Click to expand...

its not that i disagree but In this specific case what sites were silenced based on "ideology" and what were those ideologies
 
Praxas said:
Yeah because a private company enforcing it's user agreement is now considered "censoring" :roll:
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a private company cannot censor? My Webster's does not make that distinction. "to keep from being published or otherwise disseminated."

I'm told that You Tube also publishes manuals on bomb-making and such, and they don't censor that.

Why would they censor speech not concerned with how to make bombs? Do they fear controversy? Are they somehow afraid of the truth? Or are they just in awe admiring the Emperor's New Clothes?
 
Mycroft said:
Hilarious?

No. This is blatant censorship by multiple private entities working in concert to erase someone from the internet. You should be alarmed.

Tell me, what would you say if, instead of Infowars, it was HuffPo...or the WSJ...or Wapo...or a Democratic President...Democratic Congressmen...that was removed from all of those sites? Would you accept that?
Click to expand...
It's not the government, he can buy and use his own platform...no private businesses can be forced to allow his conspiracy tripe ln their forums....examples are this forum...
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you suggesting that a private company cannot censor? My Webster's does not make that distinction. "to keep from being published or otherwise disseminated."
Click to expand...

Censoring implies that FB is doing something wrong or nefarious. They are enforcing their user agreement that the dumb **** Alex Jones VIOLATED. You can play the semantics game all you want, but there is a reason for FB action and it is Alex Jones that violated the user agreement.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
If you've ever looked at it, then you are part of the reason it's still there.
Click to expand...

A very small part...but OK.

People who take offense to Alex Jones have too much time on their hand as far as I'm concerned.
And I happen to agree that private companies have the right to ban anyone from their sites.

I actually hope this is the beginning of a hard look at what people should be able to post freely on the internet.
Jones is small potatoes. How to build a bomb and the like. Or vids of torture. You know...really vulgar and potentially tragic stuff.

People like to huff and puff about the freedom of the internet. But humans...as usual...find a way to poison a good idea.
The internet has actually been weaponized in some cases. IMO...people are not mature enough for a free internet.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yeah, hilarious but not in the way that you think...
From your article, "in a message posted Monday on Twitter, Jones encouraged users to access live streams directly from the InfoWars website. He described it as "the one platform that they CAN'T ban."
Click to expand...

It's his own website...he pays he can spew fake news and still be sued
 
Mycroft said:
Hilarious?

1.) No. This is blatant censorship by multiple private entities working in concert to erase someone from the internet. You should be alarmed.

2.)Tell me, what would you say if, instead of Infowars, it was HuffPo...or the WSJ...or Wapo...or a Democratic President...Democratic Congressmen...that was removed from all of those sites? Would you accept that?
Click to expand...

1.) alarmed over what? people breakign the rules many times, being told to stop then finally being held responsible for thier actions?
2.) if its a private company and all those people repeatedly violated terms of service i say that same thing, its their fault they broke the rules . . I wouldnt care if it was my own family or friends

unless there was factual proof they were being applied unfairly and no attempts were being made to make it right i wouldn't care one bit. LOL
 
Buzz62 said:
A very small part...but OK.

People who take offense to Alex Jones have too much time on their hand as far as I'm concerned.
And I happen to agree that private companies have the right to ban anyone from their sites.

I actually hope this is the beginning of a hard look at what people should be able to post freely on the internet.
Jones is small potatoes. How to build a bomb and the like. Or vids of torture. You know...really vulgar and potentially tragic stuff.

People like to huff and puff about the freedom of the internet. But humans...as usual...find a way to poison a good idea.
The internet has actually been weaponized in some cases. IMO...people are not mature enough for a free internet.
Click to expand...

That small potatoes as you call it has caused great harm with his tin foil hat brigade
 
Facebook's Rules for Objectionable Content on its site:

Hate Speech
"We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence."

"We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below."

I'm wondering if banning Infowars will set a precedence, and become a slippery slope for other fringe type groups-- say atheist groups who bash religion in a hateful way. FB has plenty of them...
I guess it will depend on who is in charge of doling out the 'just punishments', the definer of hate for FB. :?
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
So, you like promoting hate speech?? I see.
Click to expand...

Defending the right to do a thing is not the same as liking or promoting it. You see little.

Popular speech does not need defending, the 1st Amendment isn't about protecting Mickey Mouse.

"Hate speech" is protected speech. I see the censorship of such as far worse than the content of "hate speech" and IMO only a fool thinks otherwise.
 
Praxas said:
Censoring implies that FB is doing something wrong or nefarious. They are enforcing their user agreement that the dumb **** Alex Jones VIOLATED. You can play the semantics game all you want, but there is a reason for FB action and it is Alex Jones that violated the user agreement.
Click to expand...

Your invoking user agreements is rather the best possible example of semantics. :mrgreen:

Webster assigns no moral value to the act of censorship. If their UA is supposed to have some moral agency, which you seem to imply, how can they publish bomb-making instructions acceptable under UA, but reject non bomb-making videos? Seems crazy to me. They are simply doing the government, or deep state, TPTB or whoever it might be, dirty work for them. They are advancing the suppression of controversial thoughts.

No different than book burning really.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Also, if you think free speech doesn't apply to private corporations engaging in censorship, please look up Marsh v Alabama.
Click to expand...

That was over seventy years ago and more recent cases have seemingly set the opposite precedent.
 
ClaraD said:
That small potatoes as you call it has caused great harm with his tin foil hat brigade
Click to expand...

Great harm???

Here's an idea...if he bothers you so much...DON'T WATCH!
And how do you think he's caused great harm anyway?
Great harm to who? Himself? Come on man. The guy's ranting and raving is maybe entertaining, but let's face it.
Alex Jones is an entertainer...not a news journalist.
He's a windbag.

Sure, some of the things he says ring true to me...but then he wonders off into the wild blue yonder and...ruins any credibility he ever had.
People who are fans of his are likely very lonely or very very bored.

So I'm curious..."great harm"? To who? Lonely bored people?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your invoking user agreements is rather the best possible example of semantics. :mrgreen:

Webster assigns no moral value to the act of censorship. If their UA is supposed to have some moral agency, which you seem to imply, how can they publish bomb-making instructions acceptable under UA, but reject non bomb-making videos? Seems crazy to me. They are simply doing the government, or deep state, TPTB or whoever it might be, dirty work for them. They are advancing the suppression of controversial thoughts.

No different than book burning really.
Click to expand...

Oh please, book burning and deeeeeeeeppppp state is all you got? No wonder you're comments are a joke. Sell your BS elsewhere, no intelligent person is buying it.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Defending the right to do a thing is not the same as liking or promoting it. You see little.

Popular speech does not need defending, the 1st Amendment isn't about protecting Mickey Mouse.

"Hate speech" is protected speech. I see the censorship of such as far worse than the content of "hate speech" and IMO only a fool thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...


The First Amendment also isn't about what Facebook allows to be posted on their site.


Funny how many people in this thread don't understand that.
 
Praxas said:
Oh please, book burning and deeeeeeeeppppp state is all you got? No wonder you're comments are a joke. Sell your BS elsewhere, no intelligent person is buying it.
Click to expand...

The intelligent people, more accurately the perceptive people, already buy it, they already understand it.

Those who place great faith in the statements of known liars will never understand it.
 
Amelia said:
The First Amendment also isn't about what Facebook allows to be posted on their site.

Funny how many people in this thread don't understand that.
Click to expand...

See: Marsh v Alabama, you legal ignoramus.

Then take a civics lesson, free speech isn't just a 1st amendment issue its a civic duty.

Censorship is for cowards. Cut out a man's tongue and you only reveal to the world that you fear what he has to say.

Support it now, and you deserve when deplatforming gets used against you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom