Facebook suspends Alex Jones for 30 days - Page 3

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 90

Thread: Facebook suspends Alex Jones for 30 days

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    Are you familiar with the sign "My bar, my rules?" That's what this is. Don't like the rules? Don't use Facebook.
    It's why I don't.

  2. #22

  3. #23

  4. #24
    IMO Jones was specifically chosen as the first target for this because he says things that are impossible to defend.

    But the people behind this have a bigger agenda. They are going to end up going after more mainstream
    figures on the Right. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy is already indicating where this is all headed.


    Once you light this fuse, there is no telling where the censorship is going to stop. If it does.

    Radio people used to be very strident defenders of the First Amendment. I remember when I was a kid
    my mom sent a letter to a local station complaining about the lyrics in some song. The PD sent her a very
    impassioned four-page letter defending the station's First Amendment rights, and suggesting that she just
    turn her dial to another station. Things sure have changed.

    I think frankly what happened here is that Trump used Twitter very successfully in his campaign
    and people on the Left are blaming these social media companies for getting him elected. After two
    years of constant ear-beatings at Silicon Valley cocktail parties their execs finally decided to act.

    (by the way, Louis Farrakhan, still up on all of these social media sites)

  5. #25
    I trust that people who want to hear Alex Jones, or anybody else for that matter, know how to find him without the middleman, as it were. There is a reason he calls his programming "Info Wars".
    No irony there.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    It was brought out on John Grayson's Overnight America (KMOX 1120) last night, that this will ultimately be decided in the courts, as to whether Youtube is just a common carrier or that they can exercise editorial control over content. Also, this may spur the creation of yet ANOTHER venue where this type of material is allowed.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Solano County, California


    Twitter has announced that they will keep the broadcasts of GCN and Alex jones for now

    Facing mounting scrutiny for allowing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on the platform, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey gave an exclusive radio interview to Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday, explaining how such decisions are made.

    Dorsey said that when considering whether to remove extremist accounts from the site, he relies on reports from users who are experiencing or witnessing harassment and then considers the “context of everything that’s happening around it.”

    “There might be violent extremist groups that try to get onto our service, and we take that into consideration. We also look, in those particular cases, at off-platform behavior as well,” he said.

    Jones — whose content was removed this week from Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and Apple for violating hate speech guidelines — has fueled false conspiracy theories about the deadly 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. The conspiracy theories have resulted in harassment and death threats to victims’ family members, some of whom have been forced into hiding and are now suing Jones for defamation. But Twitter has decided not to suspend Jones or his website ********.

    “We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified,” Dorsey said in a series of tweets on Tuesday. “Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.”

    I say if President Trump was not using Twitter then Jones would have been removed from that Platform by now.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Solano County, California

    Well there are other places where removed Youtube talent can go to if they were banned,

    STeemIt’s CEO Ned Scott doesn’t believe in censorship; a stance that has won him and his platform fans in recent months.

    The appeal of video platform, DTube, which runs on the Steem blockchain database, is almost directly tied to what many creators allege has been happening on YouTube for more than a year: the “YouTube Purge,” an alleged condemnation of right-wing political channels, pro-gun advocates and conspiracy theorists, that’s led to claims of censorship on Google’s video platform.

    As YouTube attempts to crack down on content it deems hateful, bullying or promoting dangerous conspiracy theories, people are looking for alternatives. DTube is a decentralized video platform with little to no moderation that uses cryptocurrency and blockchain technology to pay its users. BitChute is similar, but whereas DTube takes much of its design inspiration from YouTube, BitChute looks like an older version of LiveLeaks. The creators of BitChute describe themselves as a “small team making a stand against Internet censorship because we believe it is the right thing to do.”

    BitChute and DTube don’t rely on advertising revenue. Instead users can send peer-to-peer payments.

    It’s a tantalizing prospect for YouTube users who feels like they’ve been pushed off the platform, even if the company feels otherwise. The question is whether an alternative platform can actually compete with YouTube and take some of YouTube’s biggest creators.

    The front page of BitChute greets visitors with videos on very specific topics: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, censorship and conspiracy theories like “PizzaGate.” Conspiracy videos capitalize on recent tragedies, alleging that survivors of the Parkland high school shooting are crisis actors. DTube isn’t much different.
    It’s the type of content that, if they were on YouTube, advertisers wouldn’t want their ads placed on. YouTube has filters for some of its biggest advertisers to help ensure their ads don’t appear on videos they don’t feel comfortable with. Those filters include “Tragedy and Conflict;” “Sensitive Social Issues;” “Sexually Suggestive Content;” “Sensational & Shocking;” and “Profanity & Rough Language,” according to CNN. YouTube isn’t taking these videos down. Type “PizzaGate” into YouTube’s search bar and you’ll find more than 205,000 results, but the chances of these videos being monetized are much slimmer.

    SteemIt CEO Ned Scott told Polygon that because YouTube is so reliant on advertisers, the company has to worry about those concerns when thinking of how best to run its platform. SteemIt takes a different approach; one that DTube, which runs on Steem, seems to echo.

    “If someone reports a video for infringing on copyright, it’s our legal responsibility to take the video down and investigate, which we’ll do,” Scott said. “But we aren’t policing content.”

    Thanks to their laissez faire moderation, DTube and BitChute are becoming home to controversial and disturbing topics. And some of DTube and BitChute’s biggest proponents are notable voices speaking out against the purge on YouTube.

    Dave Cullen is an Irish YouTuber better known as Computing Forever. He gained prominence on YouTube for his ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic views, speaking out about immigration in Ireland. In a recent video, “The Storm is Coming #YouTubePurge,” he explored the idea of finding a new home at YouTube alternatives. Most of these creators are still on YouTube to some extent, but there are ongoing conversations about what comes next. It’s really down to us,” Cullen said. “I hope you’ll support the people who have been affected in the way that they have. It’s just inevitable, whatever happens. I would encourage you to follow everyone you can, myself included, on the alternative platforms and please make that extended effort.

    “Because before too long, that’s going to be home. I have a feeling.”

    It’s important to acknowledge who some of the biggest proponents are for platforms like BitChute and DTube are. They have the support of prominent alt-right voices, like Cullen; Stefan Molyneux, who is best known for his stance on eugenics and white supremacy; Mike Cernovich, one of the founding leaders of the alt-right; Jack Posobiec, a DeploraBall inauguration party organizer and a pro-Trump figure who headed multiple misinformation campaigns; Ethan Ralph, best known for helping to spearhead the hateful GamerGate movement; and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson.

    Companies like Gab, which has been described as the go-to social platform for the alt-right, have publicly shown their support for BitChute. BitChute itself plays into the concept of YouTube censoring content.

    The heart of the issue is still how people perceive YouTube and how it polices content; whereas many users see YouTube as a public forum, the fact remains that YouTube is a private company.

    First Amendment activists are quick to cry foul when platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook moderate content in any way, but that’s the company’s prerogative. YouTube isn’t a government body; it’s a business that can moderate its content as it sees fit.

    There’s a legal principle that’s often used when discussing this matter: promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel essentially refers to an informal promise that a company has made, which its users feel beholden to. When Robert Kynlc, YouTube’s head of business, told YouTuber Casey Neistat that the companies four core beliefs are freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of opportunity and freedom to belong, people took that to mean any type of speech was allowed.

    Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, told Wired that the issue with the principle is that it’s too broad.

    “Social platforms are a natural place to test some of these theories, because of the power that they have and the importance of free speech in our democracy,” Hartzog said.

    YouTube is one of the world’s biggest social platforms, and it’s trying to crack down on dangerous content. That’s why conspiracy videos are being removed and why, the company says, moderators may have been a little too aggressive with flagging content and handing out strikes. Still, the company isn’t trying to shut down channels en masse, nor is it trying to restrict content.

    PragerU, a right-wing “university” that was designed to exploit YouTube and Google’s algorithm, recently noticed that its videos were restricted. The channel, which has racked up close to a billion views, accused YouTube of censorship. YouTube told The Guardian those accusations were meritless, adding that the videos “weren’t excluded from Restricted Mode [a mode that only showcases certain content] because of politics or ideology.”

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    I would think that the purpose of Youtube is to make money. If the offensive material is pulling in views (which can be monetized) then it would be counterproductive to ban it. I think Youtube is just bowing down to the snowflakes at the risk of losing revenue.
    I once heard candidate Trump in an interview on the Alex Jones Show, and they were talking like old friends.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by kf4rca View Post
    I would think that the purpose of Youtube is to make money. If the offensive material is pulling in views (which can be monetized) then it would be counterproductive to ban it.
    That approach can go both ways. If someone gets killed, you don't want your business to be sued or blamed for the death. That's not good for business either. You see how nervous people get when their personal data gets stolen. So it's more than simple political correctness here, and some of these people are doing very irresponsible things using someone else's platform. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    Lots of people talking about the first amendment without actually reading what it says. It only says "Congress shall make no law." This isn't Congress making laws, but private businesses using their terms of service. Sure none of the social media sites want to get into restricting speech, but some of this has gone beyond what these sites were meant for.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Our Conferences
Useful Contacts

Contact Us