Politicspoliticsalexjonesyoutubecensorshipfreespeechnannystatepublicprivate

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:31 PM

Alex Jones banned from Youtube

Hours after Alex Jones and Infowars were banned from iTunes and Facebook, The Alex Jones Channel on YouTube which had 2.4 million followers was terminated on Monday "for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines," along with the Ron Gibson channel which archived Jones' daily shows.





Earlier Monday we reported that Apple had completely removed five of Infowars' six podcasts from its iTunes and Podcast apps under their hate speech guidelines, reports BuzzFeed News - including the daily Alex Jones podcast and the show "War Room" - in "one of the largest enforcement actions intended to curb conspiratorial news content by a technology company to date."

Meanwhile according to Bloomberg, Facebook removed the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page, which they said “have been unpublished for repeated violations of community standards and accumulating too many strikes."

Facebook said it reviewed content “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies”... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-06/youtube-bans-alex-jones-after-itunes-facebook-remove-content

Next up: Book burning

165 replies, 2522 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 165 replies Author Time Post
Reply Alex Jones banned from Youtube (Original post)
Aquila Aug 2018 OP
LavenderGirl Aug 2018 #1
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #4
Aquila Aug 2018 #8
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #15
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #17
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #72
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #81
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #83
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #114
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #128
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #134
TM999 Aug 2018 #90
Lifelong Aug 2018 #96
tonedevil Aug 2018 #104
TendiesForBreakfast Aug 2018 #12
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #16
TendiesForBreakfast Aug 2018 #21
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #61
TendiesForBreakfast Aug 2018 #66
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #118
TendiesForBreakfast Aug 2018 #121
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #97
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #51
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #98
tonedevil Aug 2018 #101
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #115
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #116
Nostrings Aug 2018 #28
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #94
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #137
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #138
Horsefeathers Aug 2018 #2
Aquila Aug 2018 #5
Horsefeathers Aug 2018 #10
Nostrings Aug 2018 #3
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #18
Nostrings Aug 2018 #23
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #57
Nostrings Aug 2018 #67
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #68
Nostrings Aug 2018 #70
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #85
Nostrings Aug 2018 #86
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #89
GoodKraic Aug 2018 #6
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #11
fuel Aug 2018 #30
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #38
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #87
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #95
fuel Aug 2018 #112
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #113
fuel Aug 2018 #129
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #133
fuel Aug 2018 #141
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #143
fuel Aug 2018 #144
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #147
Nostrings Aug 2018 #41
fuel Aug 2018 #145
Nostrings Aug 2018 #146
fuel Aug 2018 #151
Nostrings Aug 2018 #154
fuel Aug 2018 #162
Nostrings Aug 2018 #163
TM999 Aug 2018 #91
fuel Aug 2018 #142
TM999 Aug 2018 #149
fuel Aug 2018 #152
TM999 Aug 2018 #153
Rocket_Scientist Aug 2018 #164
TM999 Aug 2018 #165
tonedevil Aug 2018 #31
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #39
tonedevil Aug 2018 #43
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #45
tonedevil Aug 2018 #48
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #54
tonedevil Aug 2018 #60
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #63
GoodKraic Aug 2018 #79
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #88
GoodKraic Aug 2018 #110
Aquila Aug 2018 #14
Muddling Through Aug 2018 #19
Gamle-ged Aug 2018 #20
Aquila Aug 2018 #50
Gamle-ged Aug 2018 #56
GoodKraic Aug 2018 #80
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #7
TendiesForBreakfast Aug 2018 #13
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #24
quad489 Aug 2018 #32
PapasOldShoe Aug 2018 #46
fuel Aug 2018 #33
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #73
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #99
_eek Aug 2018 #122
fuel Aug 2018 #124
_eek Aug 2018 #126
fuel Aug 2018 #131
_eek Aug 2018 #132
Carlos W Bush Aug 2018 #9
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #25
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #27
tonedevil Aug 2018 #36
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #42
tonedevil Aug 2018 #53
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #59
tonedevil Aug 2018 #62
MumblyPeg Aug 2018 #65
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #102
tonedevil Aug 2018 #105
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #107
TheShoe Aug 2018 #22
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #26
tonedevil Aug 2018 #34
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #40
tonedevil Aug 2018 #44
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #47
tonedevil Aug 2018 #49
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #52
tonedevil Aug 2018 #55
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #58
tonedevil Aug 2018 #76
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2018 #84
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #103
kevlar Aug 2018 #64
tonedevil Aug 2018 #71
kevlar Aug 2018 #74
tonedevil Aug 2018 #78
TM999 Aug 2018 #92
tonedevil Aug 2018 #100
TM999 Aug 2018 #109
tonedevil Aug 2018 #140
TM999 Aug 2018 #150
tonedevil Aug 2018 #155
TM999 Aug 2018 #156
tonedevil Aug 2018 #157
TM999 Aug 2018 #158
tonedevil Aug 2018 #159
TM999 Aug 2018 #160
fuel Aug 2018 #37
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #106
_eek Aug 2018 #123
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #135
Valishin Aug 2018 #120
fuel Aug 2018 #125
Valishin Aug 2018 #127
fuel Aug 2018 #130
Valishin Aug 2018 #136
quad489 Aug 2018 #29
tonedevil Aug 2018 #35
Nostrings Aug 2018 #111
Carlos W Bush Aug 2018 #69
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #75
LineLineLineReply .
Carlos W Bush Aug 2018 #77
357blackhawk Aug 2018 #82
myohmy Aug 2018 #93
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #108
New Deal Democrat Aug 2018 #117
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #139
Jack Burton Aug 2018 #119
Isidore Aug 2018 #148
Will Morningstar Aug 2018 #161

Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:39 PM

1. At least he's taking it well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LavenderGirl (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:47 PM

4. Jesus Christ, why would anybody want to listen to that hating asshole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:49 PM

8. Example of why the Bill of Rights is lost

Congrats.

Enjoy the new US

Some of us are hosting a book burning party, you're invited. We're calling it Fahrenheit 2018

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:02 PM

15. Please explain to me what a private corporations actions have to do

with the Bill of Rights. Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:07 PM

17. As private companies, social networks are not required to adhere to the First Amendment

Since they are all in the private sector, I don't think the government should try to tell them how to moderate their content. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:04 PM

72. They are a trust

And should be prosecuted as such. They should be regulated as a public utility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #72)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:48 PM

81. But they are not regulated as public utilities and should not be

They are more like content providers. Even the Fairness Doctrine didn't give everybody a seat at the microphone who wanted one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #81)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:56 PM

83. No, but should be

They also acted after being asked by a Florida Democrat in Congress. Wedding cakes are compelled speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #83)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:26 AM

114. I take comfort in knowing most people oppose that concept.

And for that reason our discussion here is purely academic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #114)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:58 AM

128. When they start turning on Thom Hartman,

TYT, and Secular Talk, you will come around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #128)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:54 AM

134. Who knows? Maybe so.

I try to keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:40 PM

90. Better re-read that recent ruling on

Trump, Twitter, his Tweets, and blocking other users by the liberal judge who said that social media is now a public square.

Precedent is a bitch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #90)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 01:54 AM

96. Lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #90)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:59 AM

104. What precedent are you proposing...

has been established that affects YouTube, or Google the entity who owns the platform, canceling Mr. Jones account? Twitter owns the platform and donald is sitting in the seat of the President of the United States using his account on that platform as an 'official' communication organ of the office. In that case it was ruled that the President could not block users because his office required him to be open to all of his constituency. How do these two cases overlap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:54 PM

12. If you don't like him, don't listen to him.

You have no business telling other people what they are and are not allowed to listen to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:04 PM

16. No it is YouTube's business to decide what content they will host

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:15 PM

21. And it's Standard Oil's job to set the price at which you fill your tank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:08 PM

61. You mean YouTube is guilty of illegal price fixing?

That must be another Alex Jones conspiracy theory. I'd never heard of that particular one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #61)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:23 PM

66. Monopolization, close enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #66)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:54 AM

118. Top 14 YouTube Competitors

1) Vimeo.
2) Twitch.
3) Dailymotion.
4) Metacafe.
5) Photobucket.
6) Flickr.
7) Veoh.

More at the link here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #118)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:13 AM

121. What parent company does Vimeo have keeping it financially solvent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:00 AM

97. No, it's Standard Oil's job to set the price at which

you will fill your tank with Standard Oil products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:34 PM

51. What horrifying thing did Jones do to get kicked off UTube ?

He's been around for years......he's a provocateur.

So what did he do now to get the boot ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #51)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:06 AM

98. Don't know. It might have something to do with the fact that

he is being sued by ten of the Sandy Hook families in two different suits. Could be the accumulation of things. I’m sure if you go to his site he’ll provide a cool, rational explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #98)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:28 AM

101. Cool and rational...

is what everyone thinks if they think Alex Jones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #98)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:39 AM

115. I think this must have been the last straw

Alex Jones threatens Mueller: ‘You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying’

07/24/18

Infowars host Alex Jones on Monday issued a threat toward special counsel Robert Mueller, accusing him of covering up sex crimes and suggesting he wanted to duel the former FBI chief in an imaginary gunfight.

(snip)

"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand.

"It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads."

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/398512-alex-jones-threatens-mueller-youre-going-to-get-it-or-im-going-to-die-trying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #115)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:44 AM

116. Possibly. Fruitcake Alex always views himself as the equivalent of an Internet tough guy

It’s interesting who are his supporters here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:35 PM

28. You *could* say that about lots of people.




But would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 01:18 AM

94. Q: Why listen to Alex Jones?

 

A: It's the best place to hear Roger Stone's latest talking points and newest CT word-for-word before it appears on Premier Radio Networks' Coast-to-Coast, and has been ever since Roger put Citizen-Reporter Alex Jones on WWCR Nashville at the age of 19.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Will Morningstar (Reply #94)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:55 AM

137. I did not know that

Thanks for the education

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #137)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 12:12 PM

138. Roger is the Johnny Roselli: the go-between and black operator who floats between the worlds.

 

The funny thing is: billionaire Robert Mercer (Cambridge Analytica/SMS/ AggregateIQ, thinks Roger is working for him. Billionaire conspiracy theorist and quack medicine huckster Mercer is simply Roger's ATM machine.

Nope. Roger has multiple agendas, and has ever since his first book, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (the Liberals, of course!)

(Johnny Roselli was't found floating in an oil drum in the Gulf of Mexico for being a Liberal. -- Ed.)

Alex reads Roger's scripts, and has since Day One.

Art Bell quit because he wouldn't play along. George Noory would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:41 PM

2. Lefty applauds censorship, film at 11!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horsefeathers (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:47 PM

5. If "righty" and "lefty" can't unite to prevent censorship

the nation is lost.

But then it has been lost for quite awhile.

Thomas Jefferson even quit rolling over in his grave, he's given up. He said he overestimated everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:52 PM

10. Our Nation will not be lost...

as long as leftists continue to lose at the ballot box. If crooked mee maw would have won we would be there.

Trump is literally saving America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:43 PM

3. And this is the muddy water where they're fixing to have their fight.

Anyone remember when DU went from having moderators and written rules to "community standards"?

"Community standards" = nebulous mob rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:10 PM

18. Community standards prevails here at DI

Don't you know that? You seem to like it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:20 PM

23. I DO like it here, but not for the community standards or the rules.

Its thrashing posters like you that makes me smile.


Wanna play, Cupcake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:58 PM

57. "Community standards" nebulous mob rule.

Those are your words. If you can't remember posting them you can review your reply just upthread. I don't understand how you can believe a community standards policy can be so bad at DU but just fine here, according to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:30 PM

67. Oh, so you DO want to play. Very good. Let us begin.

"Community standards" nebulous mob rule. Those are your words."

Did someone say they weren't?


"If you can't remember posting them you can review your reply just upthread."

Did you have a hallucination in which I denied posting them? Perhaps bump your head or huff some jenkem or something?


" I don't understand..."


Could it be that the problem has nothing to do with you not understanding? Could it be that the problem is that you're lying out through your big piehole?

I think so, but lets have a look.


"...how you can believe a community standards policy can be so bad at DU but just fine here, according to you."

Where did I ever say it was just ANYTHING here? Oh, you pulled that out of your ass and tried to attribute that to me.



You know, when a highly intelligent person tries to do that I feel a tiny bit insulted... like I'm not going to see it for what it is or something.

With you, not so much.



So, this is going swimmingly for you so far huh?



I actually PREFER a written down set of clearly articulated and defined rules OR none at all.

I'm at my BEST under those conditions, unlike here.

The current environment, as biased conservative as it is, is a safer place for you than either of those, I assure you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #67)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:40 PM

68. You're funny.

Your self congratulatory drivel doesn't make you look clever, despite your own high opinion of yourself. And since you asked, things are going quite swimmingly for me.

Try not to take it so hard about Alex Jones getting the hook. After all, I'm told he still has a devoted following at 4chan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #68)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:50 PM

70. Of course I am. But I couldn't do it without you. You complete me.

"Your self congratulatory drivel doesn't make you look clever, despite your own high opinion of yourself. "

I guess you didn't want to talk about 'community standards' after all.

Bad pivot too. To get me to take that kind of bait, you'll have to say something that overpowers my self control, and...well...it just isn't in you.

"Try not to take it so hard about Alex Jones getting the hook."

You saying that actually reassures me. You can't fairly beat what you can't understand, and what you said about alex jones makes it perfectly crystal clear that you do not understand me, nor probably most conservatives too.

So much the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #70)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:59 PM

85. We already discussed community standards

At DU & DI. Your hypocrisy is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:07 PM

86. There was no hypocrisy. You're just fibbing now.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on my position on 'community standards' vs actual rules/no rules.

You've been reduced to 'stating untruth as if it were truth'.

How does it feel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #68)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:26 PM

89. looks like he pummeled you on the very first post...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:48 PM

6. Good! If you want to hear this idiot

start your own media company. Fuck Alex Jones. He’s scum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:52 PM

11. can you hear yourself cheering for fascism?

Pretty despicable shit.
Anyone who cheers for shutting down speech is an enemy of freedom.
Maybe now I get to decide what is acceptable, eh? Better yet, maybe we all vote that Trump gets to decide who can be heard and who can't. Sound like fun, smart guy?
I find your position on this quite disgusting.
Will you people EVER learn? you keep making new rules, then go mental when they get applied to YOU in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:50 PM

30. A private corporation is under no obligation to host a lying lunatic. Too bad.

You'd be cheering if it were a liberal who got the boot, so keep your fake whining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:01 PM

38. then why are we forced to bake homo wedding cakes?

if you dont see a problem here, that is pretty scary. Alex Jones is the EXACT type that needs protected... he is highly unpopular.
I don't subscribe to mob rules, and when 3 companies on the planet own 99% of the information, we have an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:13 PM

87. The oligarchy globalist MSM wants a tight monopoly on what information

the American people have access to.

Starting to look like the USSR.

Google is part of the globalist system...they attend Bilderburg every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 01:25 AM

95. Hi, Mumbly. Alex *is* protected on Genesis Commns., WWCR World Wide Christian Radio Nashville TN.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:44 AM

112. This is business. Jones isn't asking for a product available to all, then being discriminated agains

he is selling a product that a business no longer wants to offer.

Are people going to cry freedom of speech if Wal-Mart decides not to carry their brand of toilet paper anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #112)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:53 AM

113. Look at the result, why do you deny it?

Alex Jones lost 99% of his presence and voice yesterday at the hand of politically active monopolies.
You think that is acceptable? The message is in the result. Blame whoever you want, call it whatever you want, but a free individual was silenced yesterday. He may be nothing more than a showman and a character actor, but that makes it just as bad. There are all kinds of actions that are sinister and evil, yet completely legal. But, I refuse to apologize for such methods or the people willing to employ them... most especially for political purposes.
Look at the result. It's not acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #113)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:59 AM

129. Don't like to play by your own rules I guess. Free hand of the market and all that.

You should be more concerned about Trump's attempts to silence the media than a private company that doesn't want to be associated with a RW lunatic anymore.

Too bad Jones put 99% of his presence and voice with people who actually think the first amendment goes both ways.

Sounds like the RW wants Socialism for Alex Jones now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #129)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:35 AM

133. so, demanding free flow of information is now "fascism"? Ok, now I know what I'm dealing with...

get lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #133)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:24 PM

141. You can't have it both ways cubby.

The Right making fake news accusations to shut up the media, firing of journalists who don't tow the Trump line, beating protesters trying to exercise their free speech, etc.

That's creeping fascism.

Yet now you are all broken up and screaming freedom of speech because YouTube dumped Alex Jones shit?

RW hypocrisy is what we're dealing with here. Feel free to get lost yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #141)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:03 PM

143. go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #143)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:17 PM

144. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #144)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:53 PM

147. yea thats great, you think you are hilarious, a common trait among you oblivious types

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:05 PM

41. Wrong: rick maddow is under contract with msnbc.



"You'd be cheering if it were a liberal who got the boot, so keep your fake whining."

What you call "cheering", would be cheering for consistency.

Don't worry, its coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #41)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:23 PM

145. Who's Rick Maddow? Oh you mean Rachel Maddow....

Took a second to catch up on the homophobic insult, you sly fox you.

Consistency? Yeah, Maddow does seem to consistently kick RW lies into the gutter where they belong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #145)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:32 PM

146. Homophobic? Hardly.

Mocking a girl because she looks like a boy, is not homophobic, silly lefty.

Nor is mocking her because shes a far leftist nutbag who falsely tries to pass herself off as an objective journalist.

That line of attempted silencing and shaming through defining 'insert dem smear here' as anyone that mocks or disagrees with one of you or one of your talking point repeaters expired permanently, some time during the evening of november 8th 2016.



"Consistency? Yeah, Maddow does seem to consistently kick RW lies into the gutter where they belong."

I'm sure all 17 of her viewers agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #146)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 08:45 AM

151. How's that back paddling working for you? No one else is buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #151)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 10:17 AM

154. Back peddling?

Which statement did I walk back?

Oh that's right. None of them.

Silly modern day leftist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #154)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 09:33 AM

162. LOL at Corporate Righty in denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #162)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 11:05 AM

163. LOL@Fuelish lefty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:46 PM

91. Oh, so now, social media is a private platform

that can follow its own rules and it is no problem if say President Trump or any other government official blocks users, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html

Oops! A judge just ruled in May that social media IS a public platform where First Amendment rules apply. If it does for Trump, then guess what little ignorant one, it is applies for Jones.

And per usual, you are wrong. We never applaud censorship. If I don't want to read the vile disgusting racist Tweets of a little Asian cunt, I just block her or avoid her. See!? Freedom of speech and the adult obligation to allow even those voices we don't personally want to hear, a stage to still speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #91)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:39 PM

142. Why don't you sue Youtube then? I'm sure you know so much more than their team of attorneys.

Quit crying and do something about it. Oh wait, I'm sure there is some deep state conspiracy preventing that from happening so you'll just sit here and whine about it while thinking you are so superior.



Tell you what. I think YouTube and has a first amendment right to not host vile, hateful, insane rhetoric from a lunatic. The government hasn't edited Jones words or shut him up. Privately held companies just don't want his conglomerate or brand on the servers they own. That's called tough shit, Alex.

Like I said, it's amazing how rabid RW'ers get all Socialist when it comes to one of your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #142)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 02:53 AM

149. Well, I do know that I am superior to you kid.

You have no grasp of the law.

You have no grasp of the Constitution.

You obviously have no grasp of what 'socialism' is.

Listen kid, regulation of entities, corporate or not, that are using their monopoly control in order to stifle speech that they disagree with in an arena that is already being ruled upon as being the public square is not socialism.

Actually, I am doing quite a bit. I am working with the Goldwater Institute on such cases and getting directly involved locally in stopping liberal corporations and politicians from stifling speech in all venues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #149)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 08:49 AM

152. Well you think you are superior, but that's about it.

It seems that I have plenty of grasp of the law and the constitution because people like you and Jones aren't going to do a damn thing about his removal from various social networks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #152)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 10:08 AM

153. Keep telling yourself that kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #91)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 01:21 PM

164. TM999 you might want to re-read the ruling

It did NOT state that social media is a public platform. It stated that a social media platform UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL is a public platform and did not apply to personal accounts. Trumps twitter account was considered under the decision to be under government control. Link to the decision:

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf

But just in case, here is the relevant passage in the decision and note that it specifically says government control:

Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protectedby the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert
governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account.That i~teractive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based
exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum 1s proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests.

Also note that Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope Hicks were dismissed as defendants. Hope Hicks was dismissed in particular because she was NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT having resigned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rocket_Scientist (Reply #164)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 01:38 PM

165. I have read it.

Now read the other similar rulings and the analyst and predictions of other cases to come from National Review, The Federalist Society and others. I did not say it was the only ruling that would impact. I said it was one of several.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:51 PM

31. I'm for a private enterprise...

controlling their resources as they see fit. Why do you hate Capitalism? You can certainly decide what is acceptable to be hosted on your servers using your bandwidth, just like YouTube and Twitter are doing. Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:03 PM

39. ok. theres only one gas station left in town and they

jack the price up to 50 bucks a gallon.
FREE ENTERPRISE!!!!!! Suck it up!

yea. see, there are limits, and this is the threshold of one of those limits. denying it isn't only non-productive, it's dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:09 PM

43. There's only one gas station in town...

so you want to have the government enact price controls? You seem to be suggesting there should be government control of what YouTube and Twitter put on their sites. I thought we were supposed to let the market sort things out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:19 PM

45. you know what, you are right. The business should decide. No matter the consequences.


Now, lets see how this all ends for actual freedom.
It's seriously disturbing that people think this is acceptable under these circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #45)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:27 PM

48. What mechanism are you proposing...

to require YouTube host video that they have indicated they don't want? I don't think there is any agency that has been so tasked, nor do I think there is any applicable law so I'm really wondering how you think YouTube should be regulated in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #48)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:44 PM

54. the mechanism is to prohibit them from discriminating at all until there is fairer

market choices for consumers.
You know full well that they have been implementing political tactics for a long time now, we all know it.
I suppose I should elaborate instead of simply ranting...
Quite frankly, twitter, facebook, etc I couldn't care less about those asshats, they are nothing but glorified BBS chat boards and they will come and go via market forces.
But google... that is another thing entirely. Google controls the flow of almost all information now, and it needs to be under strict regulatory oversight. There should be no manipulation allowed. Period.
The rest of them, fuck em. Those are nothing but toys and what they do may piss me off, but its' none of my business.
As with most things, this isn't a black and white issue, and it's lazy to treat it as such. At what point do we consider something compulsory?
What's critical? Should people be allowed free flow of unfiltered and unmolested data? If so, where do they go if not google? Because quite frankly, there is no suitable competing service. "The internet" isn't simply a source of entertainment now. It would be no different than if out entire interstate system was built by a private business under fair use assumptions at the cost of citizens, then all the sudden said private business held it hostage and only allowed political allies to travel?. What if airlines all collaborated and did the same? Would you defend that under the "private business" argument as well?
See, once this large, these private companies present a VERY public problem. And I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm smart enough to have THE solution all formed and written up in flawless fashion. It takes people a shit ton smarter than me to consider all facets of something such as this and somehow consider the constitutional rights of every single individual involved... including the business. But this can't be allowed to propagate. Today it's someone we all laugh at. Tomorrow it's us... and anyone with a lick of common sense can smell that one coming a mile away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:02 PM

60. I'm looking at the regulatory environment...

as it exists today not what I think might be or should be. With that in mind there is no regulation that would require YouTube to carry Mr. Jones videos. Certainly new technologies create new circumstances and changes and additions to laws and regulations is not only desirable, but may well be required. So I think you have a reasonable argument that Google is large enough and insinuated into peoples lives enough to be looked at for regulation. When/if such lawmaking comes about for your preference would you regulate Google or make them a government agency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #60)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:11 PM

63. Dear Lord no... government shouldn't be in charge of it, ever. Thats far worse of a scenario.

What I'm saying is that Google should be left the hell alone as long as it can keep it's manipulation out of the information stream. It is FAR too embedded, and has proven that it cannot be trusted to remain neutral.
And I wouldn't have the slightest clue where to start as far as writing legislation to prevent this from continuing.
the biggest issue I see up front is how do you define information, and how do you weigh or measure it? How do you define an information monopoly?
I know thats exactly what google is, but how would I write that down in words?
Fucked if I know. Is some pieces of data more valuable that others? Who is going to classify it? It most certainly cant be left to vote on, because then individual freedoms that I argue for are dissolved. Gov agencies are subject to political winds, again, not acceptable. And that's why I opt for the same exact approach that our founders did: ALL information is equal, and NO information should be subjected to classification because it is vulnerable to the human condition of bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:41 PM

79. You have no clue what youre talking about.

What do you mean by “you people”?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #79)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:22 PM

88. it's a relatively simple term, and I think you know full well what I mean by it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #88)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:16 AM

110. Its a vague term hence my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodKraic (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:56 PM

14. And if you're gay and want a cake

start your own bakery.

Wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:13 PM

19. Alerted. Bad faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:13 PM

20. You KNEW you'd be alerted on.. and you were.. bad faith alert...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:34 PM

50. False

There's no "bad faith" there. Just pointing out the double standards.

Why must a private baker cater to people he doesn't like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #50)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:57 PM

56. "Bad faith" is a judgment choice available to a juror which can be applied to the alerter's alert!..

... I'm guessing you don't serve DI juror duty?...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:44 PM

80. So you think a private media company should be

forced to broadcast what you want to see/hear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:48 PM

7. I urge everyone to continue using youtube

but load adblock plus.
consume their bandwidth and in massive volumes, and watch zero advertisements.
the same can be done with facebook by loading a plugin called facebook purity ( fbpurity.com ).
Keep watching those hollywood movies, but get them from torrent sites.
I can't hurt any of these fascists, but millions doing the same can outright destroy them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:55 PM

13. Brave comes with a built-in adblock.

And always archive news articles before sharing, because fuck their ad revenue.

https://archive.fo/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:26 PM

24. I don't think these dumb fuckers realize what they've bit off this time.

I have a good feeling this one is going to blow up in their faces... and I REALLY hope it does.
It's time that information be considered a commodity or product.
Think about it for a minute... what if this was electricity and these 3 companies who own 99% of it all collaborated to raise the price 1000% in one day. People would be going to prison right now.
I mean, screw Alex Jones.. I can't stand that guy. But anyone who doesn't recognize this for the violation that it is deserves none of the freedoms they are afforded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:52 PM

32. Nor do those asswipes realize the precedence they are setting, kinda like those who wanted Germany..

..to pass gun registration laws in the late 1920's only for those same laws to be used against them when Hitler took over. Lefties have proven they have no long-term thinking skills..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:20 PM

46. May I please help you?

 

One sets a *precedent*, or multiple *precedents*, "precedents" being the plural of "precedent".

"Precedence" is the order in which people or things do something or have something done to them: their priority or their rank.

Setting precedence would involve saying, for example, that Bill will walk in front of you, and Mary will walk behind you.

I certainly agree that the thinking skills you mention are important!

I hope I have been of assistants ... er, assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:53 PM

33. You have that backward.

YouTube just got rid of the fascists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:18 PM

73. No,

They got rid of a libertarian. Fascism is a totalitarian state and strictly regulated economy, while socialism is a totalitarian state with all industry is state owned and centrally planned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #73)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:14 AM

99. They got rid of Roger Stone's sockpuppet. Alex is not the problem. Roger's truly a dangerous man.

 

I've been monitoring Roger's Assault on Truth Campaign for 18 years. 2003-6, I hardly missed an episode.

This is also the real reason Art Bell quit. Art pioneered the Coast-to-Coast format, and strongly disagreed with its being twisted into a vehicle for deepstate-pumping antigovernment conspiracy, and the sowing of apathy and suspicion our public institutions are evil and want to kill us.

Art was the real libertarian. As libertarian as me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:30 AM

122. So it is official, the word Fascist has zero meaning anymore.

That blow hard chowderhead is many, many things, one of the last things he could ever be described as is a fascist.

So along with liberal, progressive, rape, racist, conservative, freedom and democracy, we can add fascist to the dustbin.

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #122)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:46 AM

124. Feel free to add it to your dustbin.

I think fascist fits just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #124)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:50 AM

126. Then you are ignorant and deserving only mockery and derision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #126)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:13 AM

131. As are you for supporting something like Alex Jones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #131)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:19 AM

132. Go ahead and read through my posts.

I am on record stating he is scum.

I support freedom and that sometimes means scum need to be allowed to be scum. Supporting his rights, is not supporting him or his ideas.

I am not afraid of other peoples ideas, and have no need to reinvent defdinitions to words.

If an idiot wants to let the world know they are an idiot, then hey.. Let freedom ring. Your bell is quite loud in this very thread. And I think that's awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 05:49 PM

9. If I owned a business, I wouldn't want that fuckhead anywhere near it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:30 PM

25. You and I know better than to take it seriously. It's as easy as not watching it.

what you have is 3 of the largest holders of information and media on the PLANET deciding now what you get to watch and what you don't.
Pick your favorite info or entertainment source. Now imagine they all collaborated and banned it simply because they don't agree with the messages printed there.
What you have here is a coordinated monopoly on information, and it is held by the most politically active and hateful fuckers on the planet. If we don't recognize the danger in front of us right here for what it is, we have even bigger problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:32 PM

27. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:55 PM

36. So you want the government...

to control private enterprise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:07 PM

42. it's a monopoly. we have guidelines for that for a very particular reason. and in this case,

yes I do.
If a small, insignificant baker can be forced at gunpoint to bake homo wedding cakes, protecting the free flow of information and speech certainly should take priority.
But let's let it go. One day it'll be you when they get to the small fish.... but by then, it's already over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:38 PM

53. Can you tell us...

what guidelines you think are applicable here? To the best of my knowledge there are none, but I would love to see the laws or regulations you think are being broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:00 PM

59. Let me be more clear. I don't think ANY law is being broken becasue we have not properly

classified certain businesses as commodity or critical. I'm saying we should be evaluating it, we should have been evaluating it 15 years ago, and we should be acting on it.
And as I state din another post, I don't have a detailed solution, one would be pretty self-centered and a laughing stock if such a claim were made.
Here's what I DO know:
- information channels are now controlled strictly by political activists... all of the same brand.
- said private businesses controlling the information are molesting and manipulating it worse than Alex Jones could ever dream of
- said manipulation of data does a serious disservice to humanity, truth, fairness and freedom overall
- said companies are indeed politicizing by selective filtering and generating a false view of truth throughout the civilized world
- ALL of the points made above negatively impact society and freedom overall
- left as it is, a one sided and invalid world view will become and remain mainstream.

This is now a regulatory issue in my eyes. Alex Jones isn't even my argument, I can't stand that guy. He's just a showman pandering to a niche audience. Everyone else laughs at that tard. They days he is a fool far outnumber the days he's actually right about something.
My issue is that 3 companies just decided that the rest of the planet shouldn't be allowed to view his material anymore, and I have a problem with that. Sure, its done under the guise of "it's my website, I can choose who uses my shit and who doesn't"... And while that may be true and fundamentally just, one must recognize the evil of such a decision, the evil that has done the same to countless political opponents, and then recognize the negative ramifications that it carries if he is to claim intellectual purity.
There are 2 sides of this argument and they are BOTH valid... and I side with the free flow of unmolested information, and I will every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #59)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:10 PM

62. Sounds like you want...

a Fairness Act for the Internet. I don't think what happened to Mr. Jones is an act of politics I'm pretty sure it was purely financial. For the record, I have no better source to identify the motivation of the companies that banned Mr. Jones than any other schmo so "I don't think" means everything written after is strictly my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #62)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:16 PM

65. I'll agree with you on point because Jones is really more of a flame that attracts

maggots instead of butterflies... most definitely not advertiser friendly. But he isn't my argument.
you know what i'm referring to... and that is the social and political manipulation we have been witnessing for the past several years.
Case in point: the two black girls on facebook... big time Trump peddlers. I can't remember their names. Outright silenced for no other purpose than they were political opponents and delivering information to people that certain ideologues want eliminated. This is dangerous in a very big way. right now there ARE no lines... but I'm afraid we are going to have to start drawing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #62)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:39 AM

102. Elliott Richardson proposed a Code of Fair Information Practice, modeled on the Television Code...

 

...in 1973. It was a Nixon Administration initiative to protect the rights and liberties of Americans from manipulation or violation of personal liberties by Big Brother and Big Data. It required any information development and dissemination entity to provide each citizen a written notice by mail each and every time their information was exchanged, transferred or consolidated between one information storage and retrieval system and another.

Passed by House and Senate, the enabling legislation died when President Nixon resigned before signing it.

Would have made facebook and Google's business models quite impossible.

See "Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens", Attorney-General Elliot Richardson, 1973.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Will Morningstar (Reply #102)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:11 AM

105. All good...

but that isn't law so my responses didn't address any of that. Are you saying I need to consider what you posted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #105)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:32 AM

107. Only in the sense that Britain has an Office of the Information Commissioner and the U.S. does not..

 

...for the above reason.

Alex's controller Roger Stone has used Alex to disseminate false information for purposes of undermining public morale for 20 years, long before Roger became the focus of the British forensic computer tracing of the toxic memes and stolen DNC e-mails targeted and weaponized by Stone, in cooperation with Assange, Nigel Farage, Robert Mercer, SMS/Cambridge/ Aggregate IQ, and far-right amplifiers in Britain and America.

The British have 40 full-time forensic computer analysts tracking the activity on the same 87 million facebook accounts currently at issue in the Mueller inquiry, and are sharing all results with the F.B.I.

What do the two different things have in common? Roger Jason Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:18 PM

22. Womp womp

Wouldn't have happened if he followed the rules he agreed too. Womp womp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:30 PM

26. Censorship !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:53 PM

34. As practiced by private companies...

everyday. Why do you guys hate Capitalism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:03 PM

40. No, it's blatant bias...Lefty bias.

Youtube can show Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of our current sitting President, but they have a problem with the political views of Jones ?

@ 1:03.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #40)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:12 PM

44. So you want it regulated...

by the government? YouTube should control what goes on their site, if you are offended they allow video of Kathy Griffin holding a fake severed head you are under no obligation to watch it or participate on their site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:23 PM

47. Ohhhhhh.....if you're offended by Alex Jones, "you are under no obligation to watch or

participate on their site. " Exactly.......so why throw Jones off of Youtube ?

It goes both ways, dude.

Lefty bias and censorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:32 PM

49. YouTube...

pays for servers and bandwidth is there some reason they should be forced to give that to Mr. Jones if they don't want to? I understand there is a right to free speech in the US, but there isn't any such right to YouTube access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #49)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:37 PM

52. And why doesn't Youtube " want to " ?

Could it be their Lefty bias ?

Come on, what is the real reason ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 07:46 PM

55. I have no insight into...

what the motivation may be for YouTube to ban Mr. Jones. Can you explain how that has any bearing on the case at hand? YouTube is a private company and they made a decision not to extend their service to Mr. Jones anymore. In this case YouTube is exercising their first amendment rights since and they aren't a government agency their action does not result in a violation of Mr. Jones first amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #55)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:00 PM

58. Ahhh....but the reason why is essential here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #58)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:20 PM

76. You said that already...

the question you didn't answer is why? YouTube isn't under any obligation to provide a reason and given the usual content of Mr. Jones presentations I would not be surprised they can point to an overwhelming number of TOS violations. He got to fly under the radar for a long while, but now he is big news and doesn't look too good in the light of day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #76)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:58 PM

84. Corporate fascism......just because he speaks about things the MSM won't cover.

Who the F_ck is google to decide what political topics can and can not be covered ?

Just like Antifa who refuse to allow speakers on the RW to speak at Universities.

This is a political chess move against RW speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #84)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:58 AM

103. Alex isn't "RW speech". Alex is scripted dis-information. Alex is a sustained attack on belief in...

 

...the existence of objective truth. For ulterior motives. With no regard for the innocent collaterally damaged by his disinformation activity. His controller Roger Stone hides behind him. Roger is a clear and present danger.

RW speech is important and valuable. Agree or disagree with RW speech, RW speech is based upon truth as interpreted by honest RW speakers. Roger "The Hitman" Stone (Roger chose this nickname himself. -- Ed.) is to RW speech as Hannibal Lecter is to foodservice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #49)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:12 PM

64. The public accomodation laws should

be extended to the digital space in addition to regulating them as a telco or cable company depending on their particular business. Throw in some antitrust in a couple of instances.

Lobbyists have prevented congress from keeping up with things, if you know what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #64)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:59 PM

71. What public accommodation law...

would regulate the YouTube decision to dissolve their relationship with Mr. Jones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #71)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:18 PM

74. What part of "extended" did you not get?

A newly crafted law would be an extension of the concept.

Or perhaps all that is needed is an addition to the definition of "Public accommodations" in a legal sense.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #74)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:26 PM

78. I don't understand what public accommodation...

rule would cover the situation between YouTube and Mr. Jones if it extended to the Internet. Are you saying a Television station has to present TV shows they don't want to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #78)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 10:50 PM

92. The exact same 1st Amendment requirements

that were decided with regards to Trump blocking users on Twitter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html

Jesus, do you leftists ever know what is going on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #92)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:14 AM

100. donald sits in the seat of the...

President of the United States of America and uses his account on the the platform owned by Twitter as an official channel of communication to and from the office of the President of the United States of America. There was a legal finding that in that capacity he was not allowed to block other users from communicating with that account. In the case being discussed YouTube, the owner of the platform, has opted to dissolve their relationship with Mr. Jones. Perhaps you know something I don't how are the cases at all comparable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #100)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:16 AM

109. Read the actual fucking ruling.

She stated in her ruling that it was a Constitutional issue regarding free speech. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #109)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 12:24 PM

140. Simply using the term...

free speech isn't much of an argument. The ruling against donald speaks to social media accounts belonging to politicians that are used as official communications to their constituency. In those cases it was found unconstitutional for the politician to cut constituents access to communication. Mr. Jones situation isn't covered by that ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #140)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 02:54 AM

150. Read it again. Your grasp of its ramifications is sorely lacking.

Some hints - new understanding of town square, government responsibility, free speech, and the two way street between those involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #150)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 12:28 PM

155. Based on your reading of the decision...

is there any circumstance under which a social media entity can ban a user or restrict the content a user can put on their forum? I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure I can be 180 degrees wrong on this, but my understanding of the ruling is it only speaks to the circumstance where someone with a public office that uses their personal social media account as a communication organ of their office can't block users. You seem to be extending that to say the social media outlet can never block any user which doesn't seem reasonable to me. Sadly I don't think that Mr. Jones and his legal team will try to use that decision to force him back onto the various outlets so we won't see how it would play out in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #155)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 12:51 PM

156. From my reading and the commentaries on the ruling

by Constitutional analysts, this opens up the social media sphere to the rules of the town square if you will.

On the government side of things, there must be transparency, they can not block users in the capacity as public office olders, and they are bound by archiving laws. These are all legalities that are already on the book.

On the owner side of things, there will need to be an adherence to only banning or denying use to those users who actually break a law. Had Jones actually be found in a court of law of being guilty of an actual crime such as libel, defamation, etc., then yes, Facebook et al could ban him from use. Hate speech is not a legal term and flies in the face of First Amendment freedom of speech, expression, and assembly constitutional protections. Therefore, sites like this can not use these non-legal means to stifle speech, expression or assembly.

So if the government is bound to the rules that apply to the town square then the companies and the people are as well. Laws on the book can only be used against users not internal algorithms that favor a political bias.

There is some excellent writing on this in the last month at the Federalist Society, National Review, and several legal blogs. You should be able to easily find them via Google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #156)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 01:34 PM

157. Do you think...

Mr. Jones and his attorneys will use that decision to get him back on the forums that booted him? If donald's appeal is successful would you still think Mr. Jones would have a First Amendment case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #157)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 03:31 PM

158. I hope Jones does but I have not seen any

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2018, 04:34 AM - Edit history (1)

indications yet. They may be waiting on the appeal but Trump and the attorneys have not weighed in yet on whether they are appealing. The Trump ruling was only just the middle of this last May.

There are several other rulings along the same lines in various states so I do think given what I have researched, even if Trump was successful on appeal, Jones could still have a case given what I shared here.

We are in a new arena but having to deal with old questions of Constitutionality and the Bill of Rights. It may take a few years to get hammered out but I am more than certain there will be changes as to how such large tech giants manage the social media they control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #158)

Wed Aug 8, 2018, 04:39 PM

159. I may be wrong...

and can't look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure that an appeal has been filed. I think it was by the Justice Department. Regardless, I would be shocked if Mr. Jones used that ruling to try to get back on the forums that gave him the boot and I would be even more amazed if his case were allowed to go forward.
While I'm sure we have some differences as to what it should look like I have to wholeheartedly agree with you on this "It may take a few years to get hammered out but I am more than certain there will be changes as to how such large tech giants manage the social media they control."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #159)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 04:37 AM

160. There has to be when

TV is not the main airwaves anymore, same with radio.

For example, just yesterday Facebook pulled an GOP congresswoman ad. They claimed it was for violating their terms and conditions. The ad was fine. It was a truthful ad about a young Cambodian candidate whose parents faced the horrors of the Pol Pot regime before coming to America.

Controlling who can and can not post political ads and the like severely compromises the fairness and integrity of our elections. It doesn't matter if we political agree on anything but I would hope that neither of us would try to use corporate power to stifle the other's voice in an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:56 PM

37. Alert swarm RW's complaining about censorship.

That's pretty rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:12 AM

106. Two weeks ago the same voices said, "It is now time for Will Morningstar* to leave Discussionist".

 

Fascinating.

I posted Alex's shortwave frequencies on this site, so nobody need miss a minute of Alex Jones. They've loved Alex Jones on WWCR World Wide Christian Radio Nashville since the Day Roger Stone put him there at the age of 19. Alex can be heard around the world from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. E.D.T. Mon-Fri on 12.160 mhz., rebroadcast from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. on 4.840 mhz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Will Morningstar (Reply #106)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:41 AM

123. Far more people have a computer than a SW capable radio.

I actually use WWCR as one of my calibration points when checking recaps on some of my old radios.

Youtube is arguably now the public commons, and we need to address that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #123)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:54 AM

135. Here we agree. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:09 AM

120. Why would that be rich

their side has been complaining about leftist attempts to censor for years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #120)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:48 AM

125. All while continuing to silenece left leaning opinions here with the jury system.

Perhaps you should re-read my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #125)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:56 AM

127. I've been on a lot of juries

can't say I have ever seen that. I've seen a lot of alerts toward leftist who behave badly thinking that such should be ignored because "its the internet", been on some for righties who behave badly as well often for the same trolly reasons. While I have seen several alerts against righties for no explainable reason other than to oppress their views, I simply don't see the same in the opposite direction. Now admittedly that my be an issue where the right uses the pretext of bad behavior that they may have let go otherwise, but if the pretext is actually there and they alert on that behavior then the underlying reasoning be it real or imagined is not relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #127)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:10 AM

130. I've been on several juries as well and by far it is for righties trying to silence the left.

I've seen hides here from the right for absolutely nothing remotely close to "bad behavior" or violations of the TOS.

Tell you what. Look at the profiles of a lot of the left-leaning posters and see how many hides they have, then look at some of the profiles of the rabid RW'ers here who constantly spew filth and see how many have zero hides, 100% jury service.

Sorry, I find your post to be a complete denial of the obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fuel (Reply #130)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:55 AM

136. From what I have seen

it just isn't the way you describe. What I have seen is a tendency for the left to assume they have a great deal more leeway than what is allowed. Are there those on the right who think they can get away with that as well absolutely and they get hides as well. But the one thing I don't recall ever seeing here is a post with a left leaning position that we alerted on that did not have any reason to be alerted on. I've a seen some misunderstandings, but never had to click that attempt to disrupt option in this case. The reverse though I have seen a great deal of. This is actually what I expect to see on here as well because the right seems to like it when the left puts their views out there, they spend a great deal of time and appear to take great pleasure in tearing them apart. The reverse is true for some on the left but its not nearly as dominate of a narrative.

For example, if someone were to make a post saying the 2nd amendment is out dated and should be ignored. I would never expect that idea to get an alert more or less a hide. But if someone were to saying 2nd amendment supporters are evil racists then ya that might get a hide as an attack and one without justification. On the flip side, if someone were to say abortion is murder and as such should be illegal then based on behaviors I have seen in the past I would estimate about a 10-15% chance of an alert. Now if on the other hand the post read something akin to those seeking to keep abortion legal are twisted demon monkeys then yes that should get the hide treatment. Although admittedly it might get a pass as a GoT reference. The point though is that the later is not what we see. Instead we get a lot of the left acting like the internet version of ANTIFA thinking that everywhere is that other web site where anything goes so long as it supports their views and anything not supporting their views is off limits.

I like to think I'm about as fair as it gets around here. I call out the right and the left, but the truth is that on this site and most others for that matter the right simply behaves a great deal better than the left. Now I am sure there are some RW versions of "that other site," I know they complain about some site called Free Republic a lot but I don't go there so I don't see that. Also I guess there some site where a bunch of the exiles ended up I think they called it JPR, I don't go there either. So perhaps they too display such bad behavior. But we really don't have that here from the right at least not to so much a degree as to be noticeable by an independent. So end result are the right alert happy when they see the bad behavior absolutely they are. But that's not the same as oppressing views, the left though actively tries to oppress views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:47 PM

29. Lefties (ie Ministry of Truth) sure love their censorship....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:54 PM

35. I have a problem...

with prior restraint of speech when done by governmental agencies, but private companies are well within bounds to allow or disallow anything as they see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:33 AM

111. Does your disdain of prior restraint extend beyond speech, or is it with speech only?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 08:41 PM

69. Sandy Hook really happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #69)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:19 PM

75. When did he say it didn't?

James Tracy said it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #77)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:53 PM

82. Video clip

of him saying it from his site. Never trust CNN or Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2018, 11:04 PM

93. oh dear...

"..."for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines," …"

...violating 'Community Guidelines' is evil, it must be punished...

WIN

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myohmy (Reply #93)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 04:12 AM

108. Jones: "I'll beat the s#it out of Adam Schiff, and as for Robert Mueller..."

 

"...covering up for Epstein for a decade, and kidnapping kids for sex planes..."

-- source: ABC News as reported by Canadian Press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Will Morningstar (Reply #108)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:48 AM

117. But wait, there's more!

I just shared an excerpt upthread here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #117)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 12:22 PM

139. Thanks, Newdeal!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 10:08 AM

119. The real reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2018, 05:03 PM

148. Terms of Use & Privacy Policy

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ

Reading and accepting the following terms of use and incorporated privacy policy, as they are periodically updated, are required before you may begin or continue to interact with this website. Your use of this website for any purpose other than to read the terms of use and privacy policy is considered as your full consent to all provisions of the most current versions of the terms of use and privacy policy.

...

8. POSTED CONTENT

  8.1. We may review and delete any content you post on the Website or elsewhere utilizing our Services or System if we determine, in our sole discretion, that the content violates the rights of others, is not appropriate for the Website, or otherwise violates this Agreement.

...

14. BREACH, REVOCATION AND CANCELLATION.

  14.1. In the event that you breach any provision of this Agreement, you agree that we may immediately terminate your use of our Services and System.
  14.2. In the event such a breach occurs by you, we may post on the Website that you have violated our terms and conditions of service.
  14.3. In the event we determine that you have or continue to violate this Agreement:
    14.3.1. We reserve the right to prosecute civil and/or criminal actions against you for any abusive behavior you engage in regarding your use of our Services and System; and
    14.3.2. You will also be subject to legal ($200 per hour), administrative ($75 per hour), and technical ($150 per hour) fees in a reasonable amount for damages incurred by us for any violations of this Agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Isidore (Reply #148)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 04:51 AM

161. Thanks for posting a notice regarding respect for the Discussionist Terms of Service...

 

...and the "rights of others" (sec. 8.1).

Credit where credit is due: Lately I've been quite favorably impressed with the widespread, increasing and sincere desire of many to make use of this little place as our creators intended.

Civil discourse is just busting out all over. Congrats to Skinner and friends. This is turning out to be one of your better ideas.

Leaving us all be to sink or swim, seems to have both answered the desires of your members for a truly independent forum, and let us find our feet. This cross-section of America in microcosm can, therefore, be seen as a true reflection of the American experience in virtual space.

Thank you for sticking with us, and having faith in our better nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsalexjonesyoutubecensorshipfreespeechnannystatepublicprivate