Alex Jones..

RaohNS said:
Specific to YT, why are The Nation of Islam allowed? They deny the systematic slaughter and enslavement of tens of millions?

Why on YT are The Young Turks? They are genocide deniers. Alex Jones made statements that 30 people weren't dead and its being used to get him banned... But deny the deaths and horrors suffered upon tens of millions - and as long as you don't subscribe to a conservative(ish) view - no worries!
Click to expand...
Not hugely familiar with the young turks work so I'm happy to be corrected, but I'd imagine that the difference is that Cenks denial is a private delusion that hasn't been promoted directly by the channel while Alex Jones channel has, I think that that this argument can be further reinforced by one of the co-hosts being of Armenian decent and having spoken about the Armenian genocide (granted not on the TYT channel.). So it would be wrong to say that they are genocide deniers, just Cenk who as far as I can see hasn't used youtube to directly spread his delusions.
 
BowdonUK said:
Lets hope net neutrality survives against all enemies.

I think its wrong those companies do this kinda thing. But they have backed themselves in to a corner once they took responsibility for what their users post. Eventually they will kill themselves off.

In the meantime seek out the alternatives. Put some effort in, or these big companies will always be top dogs.
Click to expand...

People are pointing to this

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...ure-going-to-get-it-or-im-going-to-die-trying

as being the reason behind the perma ban from the 3 big platforms. Basically Jones mimics a virtual gunfight with Mueller(who's leading the Trump/Russian collusion investigation for those of you that don't know). Now people are twisting it saying Jones in directly threatening to shoot Mueller which is total garbage, Jones did a video yesterday on this, all these videos have been removed though.

So big possibility that people like Mueller are working behind the scenes to get Jones banned, some people even believe the CIA originally funded Google as a surveillance platform.

https://www.qz.com/1145669/googles-...sa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/amp/
 
MikeTheNative said:
Youtube thought the same which is why they demontised his videos and the guy now has to use patreon to make a living.
Click to expand...
StriderX said:
They have the power people give them by using it, youtube is trash, filled with trash and trashy users, so i really couldn't give a ****.

It's a fit and functional mortuary for the plebians to waste their time on "social commentators" who just repeat bile ad nauseam for years and it escalates into the vapid moronarchy that we have today.

I'd rather Youtube just disappeared. If someone i know watches the likes of Peterson, Jones, Akkad et al, I immediately become hostile. Similarly with the trash that is the TYT folk. I had a mild interest personally with Peter Hitchen's talks because i found them genuinely more intellectual than the other trash out there, though it would appear Brexit and the far-left/right idiocy has caused him to stop bothering. I don't care about his religious leanings mind you, similarly with Peterson, but the latter is a lot more annoying with it.

I get similar aggravation out of the super-atheists walking about, arrogantly ignoring how much they're just like the other side of the coin.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't really get so angry over such things
 
Personally I'm not surprised the companies have removed till foil tat man Jones (buy your own tin foil tat only $99.99 plus taxes in our shop!).

His particular brand of nonsense is both dangerous and extremely toxic, and the advertisers (who are the people Youtube listen to), really don't want any chance of being associated with his rabid hateful ramblings, not when he repeatedly goes after the victims and their families of high profile shootings.
For some reason the likes of Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Pepsi, Coka Cola, Disney etc don't like their adverts being played alongside someone who is saying the parents of a number of murdered school children are really nothing more than paid actors who should be taught a lesson.

There is also the element of liability, Youtube is expected to take action (under the law) once their attention has been brought to various things, and if for example they allow clear cases of libel/slander etc to remain they can be found guilty in court alongside the person posting the video, now YT etc can't police every video but when they've got a high profile poster who is doing it repeatedly and after being warned won't stop doing it, they may well decide the risk from that on it's own is enough.

It's similar to what happens on various platforms including forums, the people providing the service have a certain level of defence in "I was not aware of that post", but once they are aware of something breaking the law (or leaving the door open for civil action) they can be held responsible for not removing it (and if someone keeps doing it the simplest way to deal with it is to remove that user).
Youtube's strike system is a good example of one of the tools they themselves use routinely for things like copyrighted materials.

The fun part of Jones comes if and when the providers of his hosting services start to get antsy about what he's putting out as that could lead to his website either going down or having to move to the same sort of hosting providers the spammers and torrent sites use.


VincentHanna said:
Didn't Youtube demonetise loads of videos? Cyanide and Happiness is one I used to watch that now has to rely on Patreon.
Click to expand...
I think they demonitised pretty much anything that wasn't family friendly as it was easier than dealing with angry advertisers.
 
cant the alex jones supporters just boycott youtube

doesnt he have like a million subs, maybe youtube will take notice


he was a funny guy, maybe not intentionally but still..he once claimed obama was having sex with 10 dudes a day haha
 
Last edited:
These big companies mistake was accepting liability for what people post on their forums. That will eventually kill them off.

I don't think this will truly be a big deal for Alex Jones. He's done what many other YT'ers should do, and built his own website and brand. He was just using the system to get a wider audience. In that sense is job is already done.

I remember years ago tuning in to the local radio station and they used to broadcast Alex Jones show when it was just radio show with downloadable podcasts. I think they were playing the podcast.
 
BowdonUK said:
These big companies mistake was accepting liability for what people post on their forums. That will eventually kill them off.

I don't think this will truly be a big deal for Alex Jones. He's done what many other YT'ers should do, and built his own website and brand. He was just using the system to get a wider audience. In that sense is job is already done.

I remember years ago tuning in to the local radio station and they used to broadcast Alex Jones show when it was just radio show with downloadable podcasts. I think they were playing the podcast.
Click to expand...
You don't have a choice about accepting liability.

Once you (as the operator of the forum/hosting etc) are made aware of something illegal or libelous etc on your service you lose the protection you have as a pure carrier of information.

There is also the issue that it's not just about what is legally required in regards to threats/libel etc, it's also an issue of doing what is right for your shareholders (whom you have a legal responsibility to), and if you've got advertisers saying "yeah we don't want to be associated with that nut job, we're going to start pulling all of our advertising" the companies sort of have to do something (remember it's the advertisers paying the bills).

Youtube has tried half hearted things like demonitising some content which is ok for things that may be unpopular but not actively harmful to the service's image.
 
jsmoke said:
People are pointing to this

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...ure-going-to-get-it-or-im-going-to-die-trying

as being the reason behind the perma ban from the 3 big platforms. Basically Jones mimics a virtual gunfight with Mueller(who's leading the Trump/Russian collusion investigation for those of you that don't know). Now people are twisting it saying Jones in directly threatening to shoot Mueller which is total garbage, Jones did a video yesterday on this, all these videos have been removed though.

So big possibility that people like Mueller are working behind the scenes to get Jones banned, some people even believe the CIA originally funded Google as a surveillance platform.

https://www.qz.com/1145669/googles-...sa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/amp/
Click to expand...

They probably didn't fund them directly or influence them. But they WILL have access to the information on it, whether google knows about it or not. Infiltrating and gathering data is what agencies like this spend all their time doing.

The US, UK, etc stick to the rules as much as possible but when your dealing with countries like Russia who don't. There is also what's "legal" in the shadows.
 
Werewolf said:
You don't have a choice about accepting liability.

Once you (as the operator of the forum/hosting etc) are made aware of something illegal or libelous etc on your service you lose the protection you have as a pure carrier of information.
Click to expand...

I agree that the battle of liability as long gone. That battle should have happened as the googles, youtubes, facebooks and all the others appeared to gain momentum. They should have fought to keep a carrier status. Instead for whatever reason, maybe ego, they acknowledged they were prepared to regulate peoples views on their service. The moment they did that they lost the argument. Now everyone else further down the tree is forced to deal in that way.

Werewolf said:
There is also the issue that it's not just about what is legally required in regards to threats/libel etc, it's also an issue of doing what is right for your shareholders (whom you have a legal responsibility to), and if you've got advertisers saying "yeah we don't want to be associated with that nut job, we're going to start pulling all of our advertising" the companies sort of have to do something (remember it's the advertisers paying the bills).
Click to expand...

I agree on this too. The problem comes when deciding what should be banned. The illegal stuff is easy. But its when it comes to peoples opinions about different subjects. One persons opinion is anothers hate speech. So in the end most businesses seem to act very cautious. I think YT have a big tick box form that advertisers can fill out.

Werewolf said:
Youtube has tried half hearted things like demonitising some content which is ok for things that may be unpopular but not actively harmful to the service's image.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen there are certain people they want off their platform. But instead of saying that they just demonetise their videos, like instantly. Before its even gone public. This happens to both the left and right leaning people.

I suspect in the next 5 to 10 years social media sites will have changed a lot. We're either going to see them going further down this road, or we're going to see some kind of rebellion against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom