Alex Jones..

Felon

Felon

Felon

Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,926
Location
Midlands
Well it looks like the media giants have finally pulled the plug on one of the worlds biggest cretins, Youtube, Facebook, iTunes and others have all blocked him from their platforms;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45083684

I absolutely cannot stand the man, or that awful infowars company - but I'm not sure blocking his content from all the platforms sits well with me.

When all the media companies group together and decide to do a mass 'nope' towards someone, the amount of power they exercise is enormous, it probably comes with practically zero input from actual authority or any judicial system - instead it seems to me, to be a culture of intolerance - if you can't deal with it, ban it.

When the big media companies act this way, I feel as though the ability to make up my own mind about something is being taken away, and performed by some other agency according to it's own rules or agendas, as though they want to spoon feed everyone with their definition of all of the nice things.

I think there are some cases where big media companies should remove things - for example if it actually breaks the law of the land [child abuse, terrorism, etc], in many cases it doesn't - it's just a bit nasty or naughty.

Who the hell wants to live in a world where anything controversial or unsavoury (but legal) is immediately blocked?
 
The man is a ****, I have no problem with this.

They are private companies and it's up to them to decide who can use their platform and/or monetise it. Nothing to do with freedom of speech really.
 
I like him. Hopefully he will find some other platform. It's like the Gestapo have turned the screws.

Nothing much else to add.

It's proper political collusion. If you don't want to listen then don't.

I agree he made a big mistake with Sandy Hook though. Probably his downfall.

Texans are traditionally pretty brash though compared to a lot of other American's, I think I'm right in saying that.
 
He should not have been banned at all. It's getting ridiculous that one space is completely muted and others equably deplorable (such as Sarah Jeong) is unaffected.

People celebrating corporations muting people, especially when they're meant to be left thinking, is bonkers imo. You can not be a place of public discussion and then bar people for having wonky or wrong ideas.
 
Evangelion said:
We'll hear plenty more about it (in the form of whinging) but there's nothing he can do, because the law does not dictate that private corporations must provide a platform for everyone.
Click to expand...

That's probably the most interesting aspect to the whole thing - the law doesn't dictate that private corporations must provide a platform for everybody, however I think if you take a step back - the private corporations [FB,YT,iT,TW,SP,etc] together wield more real power than most legal systems combined. In my eyes they've not only become more powerful than authority - but they're actually altering society, by enforcing standards and policies which are more powerful and wider reaching [globally] than literally any lawmaker can ever be.

In one swoop, these companies have the power to totally alter what everybody sees <in the whole world>, with no real debate or wider engagement, merely a statement that reads something along the lines of 'due to violations of xyz' or 'we want to provide a safe environment for everyone' etc.
 
Screeeech said:
I absolutely cannot stand the man, or that awful infowars company - but I'm not sure blocking his content from all the platforms sits well with me.

When all the media companies group together and decide to do a mass 'nope' towards someone, the amount of power they exercise is enormous, it probably comes with practically zero input from actual authority or any judicial system - instead it seems to me, to be a culture of intolerance - if you can't deal with it, ban it.

When the big media companies act this way, I feel as though the ability to make up my own mind about something is being taken away, and performed by some other agency according to it's own rules or agendas, as though they want to spoon feed everyone with their definition of all of the nice things.

I think there are some cases where big media companies should remove things - for example if it actually breaks the law of the land [child abuse, terrorism, etc], in many cases it doesn't - it's just a bit nasty or naughty.

Who the hell wants to live in a world where anything controversial or unsavoury (but legal) is immediately blocked?
Click to expand...
It's all very well having a moral position on 'free speech', but when the real world effect is a resounding negative, such as with this chap, then you should really sit back and question the rigidity of your morals.

That applies to any firmly held moral belief. We should be flexible, or else we are just more fundamentalists.
 
I'm with XKCD on this one:

free_speech.png
 
Just stokes the conspiracy nuts doesnt it?

I dont like the chap and think he chats utter ****** but trying to shut him down like this is asking for trouble - he will find another way to get his nonsense out there.
 
He is in a lot of trouble though. He has several lawsuits against him and desperately needs regular income and o fight them, many millions needed.

All about money as usual.
 
Its better to have morons and things you don't agree with out in the open out in the light so they can be openly criticised and confronted. Moving or forcing people "underground" just leads them and there supporters to fester more.

Out of sight out of mind never works.

Please don't ban Roaming Melenniula Youtube :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom