Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and website Infowars

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, I don't think that you have made your case.

 

"...Lots of Youtubers are being shadow banned, demonetized, and banned outright. It has created counter sites like Bitchute which is full of YouTube exiles..."

 

I simply don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that many people are banned from Youtube for many reasons. And, if they are setting up an alternate site to air their views, it is difficult to say that they are being silenced.

 

"...I don't use Facebook or Twitter but I understand they also are banning or have tactics to make politically incorrect opinions invisible..."

 

I don't use them either, so we are both at a disadvantage! However, logic and common sense states that, if politically incorrect views are being made invisible, wouldn't the sound business decision be to remove extreme stuff on either side of the political equation? To assert that only 'right-wing' opinions flies in the face of logic and rational business practices. Evidence needed.

 

"...Also Mastercard has pressured Patreon to block some people from their service (this is how vloggers get paid)..."

 

I'll take your word about Mastercard; I have no idea. Can I suggest that you try Visa? Discover? Amex?

 

"...I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her..."

 

Sorry, I have no idea who this is.

 

"...And that is scary when the financial institutions decide what opinions they will allow.

Yes they are private companies, but they also monopolize their formats..."

 

For what it is worth, I do agree that it is scary when companies utilize their power to censor free speech. I also think that companies have rights, obligations and duties and the right of one individual's free speech does not override everything a company can or can't do. And, if people don't like it, they can go elsewhere; there are lots and lots of companies that provide similar services for almost everything imaginable- Go free market economy!

 

Twitter built the infrastructure of its product, built a user base, created rules and regulations to govern its use and made people agree to those rules before they were able to utilize the platform. I don't use Twitter, but I am certain that there is a user agreement that clearly specifies that Twitter has the right to close down an account if they feel it is justified. And, in the case of Alex Jones, they feel it is justified. And, I agree.

 

Respectfully Mr. C, I don't think you have made your case. I see the voices on the 'right' being heard all over the world; I see little evidence that they are being silenced.

 

Cheers, and thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

 

I'll respond to a few items

Being banned fom youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe.

 

It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices.

 

Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules 

 

If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true.

 

 

[pedro01]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He can speak his mind.

 

He just can’t do so via the privately owned Twitter platform.

 

Soapboxes on street corners are still an option if he wishes.

 

This is not a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. 

 

Of course it is - Twitter is in a dominant position and so it is no longer just a private company. 

 

In fact - the end result of this is that the company will be broken up.

 

You get too powerful, the government WILL break you up.

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, lanista said:

Alex Jones is basically a TV salesman pushing crappy products to millions of low IQ Americans.

What worries me is this is could be a practice run to get rid of RT TV which is one of the few sources of real news presented by American researches and reporters most of whom were fired by main stream media.

Freedom of speech and the public right to corporate and political awareness has almost gone.

 

To be honest, I think the word 'crappy' doesn't go far enough to describe the crap Alex sells.

 

Iodine pills to counter chemtrails.... male dongle boosting vitamins, that sort of thing. I always wondered how much of that stuff you could really sell. The mind boggles.

 

I personally can't watch him. Partly because within seconds he's talking absolute nonsense and partly because of the way he rants. 

 

I think that Twitter should not ban him though, if there is something that Alex is doing that is illegal, then the FBI/Police should step in. If he's not breaking any laws, I don't see why he should be censored. 

 

I would support new laws that put onus on public figures & the press on reporting truthfully. Sort of "libel against the nation". I think that would go a long way to curtailing the ludicrous activities of Fox, CNN, Alex Jones et al. 

[Chivas]

Who the hell is Alex Jones ! Never heard of him

[blazes]

2 hours ago, DM07 said:

Aaaaaaaaw...isn't it saweet, how all those, who follow their orange leader into battle against the fake news media and who want to reign in the MSM, is suddenly all for free speech, when one of theirs is the victim?

Snowflakeism at it's finest!

 

I hope, this vile swine is going bancrupt and will have to sell pencils on a street- corner!

As usual, the right gets "free speech" and "hate speech" mixed up! 

 

"Vile swine"...hmm, quite a heavy use of language....pretty close to hate speech?

 

 

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and website Infowars

Good. 

 

“Hutu extremists were able to incite genocide in Rwanda in part because years of propaganda had influenced Hutus to view Tutsis as less than human and so dangerous that they must be eliminated from the country.”

 

Rachel Hilary Brown, Defusing Hate: A Strategic Communication Guide to Counteract Dangerous Speech

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[DM07]

28 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

"Vile swine"...hmm, quite a heavy use of language....pretty close to hate speech?

 

 

Maybe- but someone, who uses the sorrow, grief and tragedy of parents of 6 year old shooting victims, is...what to you?

An honorable upright member of society?

If Alex Jones reads TV, he can sue me for hate- speech!

He still is a vile swine!

[DM07]

3 hours ago, milwaukeeboy said:

Alex Jones gave a platform to Tommy Robinson.

I have never heard him advocate hate or violence. What is wrong with questioning the narrative of a corporate media that are only owned by a handful of huge corporations with a globalist agenda?

Many of his detractors never have listened to him or have only heard "cherry-picked" excerpts of one of his dramatic or comedic rants.

Jones is not "far right".  He is libertarian and has hosted both Ron Paul and Rand Paul, voices of reason and sanity in an insanely corrupt warmongering, opaque, insolvent U.S. government.

Is there another person out there, who's name is Alex Jones and who is part of Info- wars?

If you have never heard him advocate violence, you must not have paid close attention...or any attention at all!

Go on youtube and indulge yourself in some of the Alex Jones- compilations, that are widely available!

Especially watch the clip, where he goes on an epic (and very scary ) rant on CNN's Brian Stelter!

He is a libertarian only in that his opinions are liberated from all facts and reason!

 

[blazes]

8 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Maybe- but someone, who uses the sorrow, grief and tragedy of parents of 6 year old shooting victims, is...what to you?

An honorable upright member of society?

If Alex Jones reads TV, he can sue me for hate- speech!

He still is a vile swine!

 

I beg your pardon...I thought you were referring to Trump!   Clearly I am getting a little "chompered"....

As you were, as some spunky blue bloods might say.

[DM07]

1 minute ago, blazes said:

 

I beg your pardon...I thought you were referring to Trump!   Clearly I am getting a little "chompered"....

As you were, as some spunky blue bloods might say.

Could have been talking about Trump!

Birds of a feather...and so on...

[Samui Bodoh]

46 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I'll respond to a few items

Being banned fom youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe.

 

It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices.

 

Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules 

 

If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true.

 

 

Afternoon, Mr C.

 

I doubt that we are going to agree, but I thought that I would take a final shot at trying...

 

"...Being banned from youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe..."

 

Banned from Youtube is bad for a vlogger. Boo hoo. If I were to follow your words and/or logic, then Youtube would not have the right to control its own platform. Respectfully, this is ridiculous. It is their platform. They built the business. They took the risks and made the investments. No one has an absolute right to use their platform; that is what is written in the user agreement before you are able to use their platform. If you don't want to use Youtube's platform, then don't use Youtube's platform. But, if you do want to use Youtube's platform and equipment, you have to play by Youtube's rules. BTW, if you are in Koh Samui and want to use my house, my aircon and my computer, you have to follow my rules.

 

"...It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices..."

 

Respectfully, I think you have that backwards. It is the right wing, pro-business types who are doing the censorship. Look at Trump and his Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). Look at big business limiting the right to sue in every contract possible, instead demanding forced arbitration. Look again at big business demanding the the FDA, the FCC, the FEC, the EPA all get weakened to ensure no oversight and no means for people to object to their activities. Look at the lobbyists in Washington; they aren't paid by the urban poor. Look at Big Business funding "Think Tanks" to drown out voices which oppose their agenda. Look at "Catch and Kill", favoured by Trump and the Enquirer. Respectfully, to say that the Left alone is behind censorship and/or false information is ludicrous. My view? Many sides are guilty here...

 

"...Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules ..."

 

That is a link to Breitbart. If you are going to cite Breitbart as a factual argument, then there really is no reason for further discussion. And, before you ask, yes I have taken the time to read the magazine on more than a few occasions; I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. If you find it to be a credible source of information, then we have a problem.

 

"...If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true..."

 

Actually, if YOU bother to look, you will see the system bias is predominately right-wing, pro-business nonsense. Living in Thailand, you know this is true.

 

But, we both like free speech, so there is hope...

 

Have a nice day.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I'll respond to a few items

Being banned fom youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe.

 

It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices.

 

Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules 

 

If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true.

 

 

You’ll need to explain how removing hate mongers spreading their poison which is all rooted in lies threatens the sharing of ideas based on rational thought.

 

Also, it is not the ‘righwing’ that is being censored, it is extremist across the whole political spectrum who are spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

 

If that turns out to be predominantly right wingers it’s because it’s predominantly right wingers engaging in spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

[Spidey]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Private businesses, private rules.

Absolutely, no different to TVF.

[Spidey]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Big mistake. Death of free speech. 

Not at all, death of hate speech.

 

We have freedom of speech in the UK, but hate speech is illegal, and rightly so.

[pedro01]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ll need to explain how removing hate mongers spreading their poison which is all rooted in lies threatens the sharing of ideas based on rational thought.

 

Also, it is not the ‘righwing’ that is being censored, it is extremist across the whole political spectrum who are spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

 

If that turns out to be predominantly right wingers it’s because it’s predominantly right wingers engaging in spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

 

Actually it's not just extremists getting banned. 

 

Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Dice, Milo Yiannopoulos are not extremists. Milo is gay and married to a black guy - this is not your typical right wing extremist. 

 

Diamond & Silk - 2 right wing, middle aged women got shadow banned (deemed unsafe) - which means they no longer appear on people's feeds.

 

They don't have to ban. They demonetize, they stop them appearing in feeds. They put them out of business. The reason - they have opinions not held by people in Silicon Valley. 

 

If it was just the 'extreme right' - it wouldn't be happening to conservative colored people - for simply retweeting hateful leftist posts but changing the 'target' of them...

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by pedro01

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

Tech companies and even technologies come and they fade away. In this discussion we can concentrate to the few existing ones and their policies or we can talk about more fundamental issue of free speech.

 

 

Free speech is available. You can stand  on any street corner and say what you like.

 

There might be consequences for saying what you like but even the 1st Ammendment doesn’t guarantee freedom from consequences.

[Spidey]

Just now, pedro01 said:

The reason - they have opinions not held by people in Silicon Valley. 

The real reason is that they have opinions that advertisers don't want to be associated with. Up to them.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

Of course it is - Twitter is in a dominant position and so it is no longer just a private company. 

 

In fact - the end result of this is that the company will be broken up.

 

You get too powerful, the government WILL break you up.

 Reading up the company is one thing, claiming a business does not have the right to make its own rules is something quite different.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Actually it's not just extremists getting banned. 

 

Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Dice, Milo Yiannopoulos are not extremists. Milo is gay and married to a black guy - this is not your typical right wing extremist. 

 

Diamond & Silk - 2 right wing, middle aged women got shadow banned (deemed unsafe) - which means they no longer appear on people's feeds.

 

They don't have to ban. They demonetize, they stop them appearing in feeds. They put them out of business. The reason - they have opinions not held by people in Silicon Valley. 

 

If it was just the 'extreme right' - it wouldn't be happening to conservative colored people - for simply retweeting hateful leftist posts but changing the 'target' of them...

 

 

Oh so hate baiters are being unjustly blocked from hate baiting?

 

 

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Actually it's not just extremists getting banned. 

 

Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Dice, Milo Yiannopoulos are not extremists. Milo is gay and married to a black guy - this is not your typical right wing extremist. 

 

Diamond & Silk - 2 right wing, middle aged women got shadow banned (deemed unsafe) - which means they no longer appear on people's feeds.

 

They don't have to ban. They demonetize, they stop them appearing in feeds. They put them out of business. The reason - they have opinions not held by people in Silicon Valley. 

 

If it was just the 'extreme right' - it wouldn't be happening to conservative colored people - for simply retweeting hateful leftist posts but changing the 'target' of them...

 

 

"Milo is gay"

 

Not all those promoting a extremist right wing agenda are straight or base their prejudices on colour.

 

Extremism, like hate, comes in many forms.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[pedro01]

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so hate baiters are being unjustly blocked from hate baiting?

 

 

 

No - - race baiting is perfectly acceptable on Twitter, depending on the race you are baiting.

[pedro01]

 

 

17 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

"Milo is gay"

 

Not all those promoting a extremist right wing agenda are straight or base their prejudices on colour.

 

Extremism, like hate, comes in many forms.

 

None if it is hate or extreme. But you are a liberal, so you therefore agree with it being banned because to you are you ilk, anything right of centre is extreme.

 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

 

 

 

None if it is hate or extreme. But you are a liberal, so you therefore agree with it being banned because to you are you ilk, anything right of centre is extreme.

 

No, that's not how I feel at all.

 

However I do recognise hate and extremism when I see it...

[pedro01]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, that's not how I feel at all.

 

However I do recognise hate and extremism when I see it...

That is just name calling

 

Milo, PJW, Mark Dice, Diamond & Silk, Candace Owens are all hateful extremists in your view.

 

Could you cite actual examples? I mean - you are willing to throw around some pretty lofty accusations. You obviously can back it up right?

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

That is just name calling

 

Milo, PJW, Mark Dice, Diamond & Silk, Candace Owens are all hateful extremists in your view.

 

Could you cite actual examples? I mean - you are willing to throw around some pretty lofty accusations. You obviously can back it up right?

Where did I accuse any of those people of anything?

 

I quoted your example of Milo as a right wing, gay man who does not judge people on the basis of colour, to point out that there are many forms of extremism.

 

You are the one naming names, not me.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[pedro01]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Where did I accuse any of those people of anything?

 

I quoted your example of Milo as a right wing, gay man who does not judge people on the basis of colour, to point out that there are many forms of extremism.

 

You are the one naming names, not me.

 

So you agree that none of them are hateful right wing extremists then? And therefore should not have been banned/shadow banned?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

So you agree that none of them are hateful right wing extremists then? And therefore should not have been banned/shadow banned?

Didn't say that.

 

From what I've read about some of those, their banning was entirely justified.

 

You use a forum, then keep to it's rules.

 

PS: Shadow banning...I do not subscribe to that particular delusion  conspiracy .

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bluespunk

[blazes]

22 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, that's not how I feel at all.

 

However I do recognise hate and extremism when I see it...

 

You never stop, do you?

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Afternoon, Mr C.

 

I doubt that we are going to agree, but I thought that I would take a final shot at trying...

 

"...Being banned from youtube is basically death for a vlogger. lots of people make their income from youtube. You can't get that kind of exposure anywhere else. It's like being moved from the New York Times, to a breakfast bulletin at country cafe..."

 

Banned from Youtube is bad for a vlogger. Boo hoo. If I were to follow your words and/or logic, then Youtube would not have the right to control its own platform. Respectfully, this is ridiculous. It is their platform. They built the business. They took the risks and made the investments. No one has an absolute right to use their platform; that is what is written in the user agreement before you are able to use their platform. If you don't want to use Youtube's platform, then don't use Youtube's platform. But, if you do want to use Youtube's platform and equipment, you have to play by Youtube's rules. BTW, if you are in Koh Samui and want to use my house, my aircon and my computer, you have to follow my rules.

 

"...It is the left that is crying for censorship, so it is the right that is getting censored predominantly It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense to censor both sides. Ideologues do not deal in sense or logic, they believe in eliminating dissenting voices..."

 

Respectfully, I think you have that backwards. It is the right wing, pro-business types who are doing the censorship. Look at Trump and his Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). Look at big business limiting the right to sue in every contract possible, instead demanding forced arbitration. Look again at big business demanding the the FDA, the FCC, the FEC, the EPA all get weakened to ensure no oversight and no means for people to object to their activities. Look at the lobbyists in Washington; they aren't paid by the urban poor. Look at Big Business funding "Think Tanks" to drown out voices which oppose their agenda. Look at "Catch and Kill", favoured by Trump and the Enquirer. Respectfully, to say that the Left alone is behind censorship and/or false information is ludicrous. My view? Many sides are guilty here...

 

"...Patreon is how vloggers get paid. Apparently it is run by Mastercard. Here is a link to an article about Mastercard forcing the closure of an account that wasn't violating any rules ..."

 

That is a link to Breitbart. If you are going to cite Breitbart as a factual argument, then there really is no reason for further discussion. And, before you ask, yes I have taken the time to read the magazine on more than a few occasions; I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. If you find it to be a credible source of information, then we have a problem.

 

"...If you bother to look you will see the system bias is predominantly left wing. As a libertarian I am in favor of free speech. I believe it is a main pillar of the enlightenment which transformed our world to the freedom loving technological marvel we achieved in the 20th century. Banning speech only ever helps the powerful. Living in Thailand you know this is true..."

 

Actually, if YOU bother to look, you will see the system bias is predominately right-wing, pro-business nonsense. Living in Thailand, you know this is true.

 

But, we both like free speech, so there is hope...

 

Have a nice day.

Yes of course Youtube has the right to ban whomever. The point is that they are censoring political discussion because they don't agree with the opinions. Is it legal? Probably, but it is a dick move just the same. And with a virtual monopoly of the vlog format platform, perhaps we will decide at some point it is not legal. It is not as if they post openly that conservative views are not welcome. They are being subversive by demonetizing or shadow banning but still profiting from the traffic.

 

That link was a perfect illustration of what I was trying to explain. It was on the site Brietbart for the obvious reason that the left wouldn't go anywhere near a story like that. That being said the article is true and illustrative of slippery slope of the financial institutions punishing clients for thought crimes.

 

I think we are describing different parts of the elephant when we are describing system bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[connda]

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such.