Alex Jones..

Roar87 said:
This is what the entire debate is about, whether freedom of speech SHOULD cover social media since so many of us are using it, not what it CURRENTLY covers. FFS.
Click to expand...

no that's not just what the debate is about, as you're ignoring all the reasons why alex jones content was removed, such as inciting violence just as ISIS does, which you agree with should be removed.

i think you'll find freedom of speech some what covers social media as there's a huge amount of content that posters on here would say youtube don't agree with politically, but they allow it and will continue to allow it.

youtube removes 1 guy of millions of posters, and now they are "removing all content they don't like because it supports trump", ignoring all the other trump supporting videos still present.

they haven't all been removed and they won't ever all be removed. everyones freedom to speech is protected, everyone can still post on youtube freely, as long as they stick to the terms.
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
no that's not just what the debate is about, as you're ignoring all the reasons why alex jones content was removed, such as inciting violence just as ISIS does, which you agree with should be removed.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that he incited violence, there's been some general ramblings where people who followed him apparently maybe threatened families of the victims, which is apparently his fault. I haven't seen that he directly threatened anyone or told other people to attack anyone. Maybe I'm wrong though

Fairly sure the answer is no said:
they haven't all been removed and they won't ever all be removed. everyones freedom to speech is protected, everyone can still post on youtube freely, as long as they stick to the terms.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones was one of the most popular channels though, so I guess it's ok until you become too big? Trump also specifically highlighted him as doing a good job, Trump has also attacked social media for being fake news, so it's fairly easy to see there's a lot of political motivation there
 
Last edited:
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
no that's not just what the debate is about, as you're ignoring all the reasons why alex jones content was removed, such as inciting violence just as ISIS does, which you agree with should be removed.

i think you'll find freedom of speech some what covers social media as there's a huge amount of content that posters on here would say youtube don't agree with politically, but they allow it and will continue to allow it.

youtube removes 1 guy of millions of posters, and now they are "removing all content they don't like because it supports trump", ignoring all the other trump supporting videos still present.

they haven't all been removed and they won't ever all be removed. everyones freedom to speech is protected, everyone can still post on youtube freely, as long as they stick to the terms.
Click to expand...

You're just a repeating robot pal.

I've watched infowars for like 10 years and not once has he incited violence. NOT ONCE.

You watch too much corporate owned media through your TV pal, filling your head full of opinions you THINK are your own.

Jesus....
 
CosmicClown said:
You're just a repeating robot pal.

I've watched infowars for like 10 years and not once has he incited violence. NOT ONCE.

You watch too much corporate owned media through your TV pal, filling your head full of opinions you THINK are your own.

Jesus....
Click to expand...

you are just a repeating robot monkey. i don't watch TV, mines just CONNECTED to an xbox and nothing else. sad!

zeus....
 
CosmicClown said:
You're just a repeating robot pal.

I've watched infowars for like 10 years and not once has he incited violence. NOT ONCE.

You watch too much corporate owned media through your TV pal, filling your head full of opinions you THINK are your own.

Jesus....
Click to expand...

Bahahahahahahaha the irony is strong in this one. Tell me what have your learned in 10 years? Have any of his stories/predictions come true?
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
no that's not just what the debate is about, as you're ignoring all the reasons why alex jones content was removed, such as inciting violence just as ISIS does, which you agree with should be removed.

i think you'll find freedom of speech some what covers social media as there's a huge amount of content that posters on here would say youtube don't agree with politically, but they allow it and will continue to allow it.

youtube removes 1 guy of millions of posters, and now they are "removing all content they don't like because it supports trump", ignoring all the other trump supporting videos still present.

they haven't all been removed and they won't ever all be removed. everyones freedom to speech is protected, everyone can still post on youtube freely, as long as they stick to the terms.
Click to expand...

Give examples of him inciting violence.

He's been removed because as you know the tech companies generally are almost as left wing as Hollywood and he's seen as a major threat to the lefties midterm and next election chances.

There's still a major transitional gap between the baby boomer generation and the current tech world of instant news and views on the internet. These people lied, scammed and perfected the art of media manipulation through TV and print for so many years only to come up against the internets and they just don't get it still. Jones was smart enough to tap into it very early, probably in the mid 90's and now it's come to fruitation and the established just don't know how to counter fight it.

Trump well advised also to use Twitter to his advantage.
 
Last edited:
jsmoke said:
Give examples of him inciting violence.

tech companies generally are almost as left wing as Hollywood
Click to expand...

here you go https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377

EDIT: sorry that's a link to another story you keep blindly denying to be true and will do your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting happened. What was the question that you wanted me to answer so that you can deny the proof any way?
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
here you go https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377

EDIT: sorry that's a link to another story you keep blindly denying to be true and will do your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting happened. What was the question that you wanted me to answer so that you can deny the proof any way?
Click to expand...

Because you don't have a link. As for Trump admitting it I am sure they did originally admit that the meeting was for dirt on Hillary which was at the time mentioned to be totally legal and almost common practice. I am 100% sure he was probably badly advised to change his story and say he knew nothing about it.

He probably genuinely did not know the meeting happened until after it happened and on hearing it did went ballistic and into damage control strategy.
 
jsmoke said:
I am 100% sure he was probably
Click to expand...

jsmoke said:
He probably genuinely
Click to expand...

100% sure probably didn't almost not happen yeah?

as much as i enjoy the story you made up, it's nothing other than a story you made up.

Out of interest, if i make a joke about you, and you don't like it so shout you want to fight me, would that be considered violent?

jsmoke said:
He's been removed because as you know the tech companies generally are almost as left wing as Hollywood and he's seen as a major threat to the lefties midterm and next election chances
Click to expand...

speaking of links that you don't have to back up what you just said...
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
100% sure probably didn't almost not happen yeah?

as much as i enjoy the story you made up, it's nothing other than a story you made up.

Out of interest, if i make a joke about you, and you don't like it so shout you want to fight me, would that be considered violent?



speaking of videos that you don't have...
Click to expand...

I've developed a thicker skin over the years. I'd just shrug it off.
 
Roar87 said:
This is what the entire debate is about, whether freedom of speech SHOULD cover social media since so many of us are using it, not what it CURRENTLY covers. FFS.
Click to expand...

No it shouldn't. Private companies have the right to remove/refuse those who they deem to have or will have broken their T&C's.

Sometimes you will agree with their removal, sometimes you won't.

The removal of a bottom feeding hate stirring piece of dirt who accused parents of been actors having only recently buried their murdered children is one I can agree with.

People have such a high level of entitlement.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
No it shouldn't. Private companies have the right to remove/refuse those who they deem to have or will have broken their T&C's.

Sometimes you will agree with their removal, sometimes you won't.

The removal of a bottom feeding hate stirring piece of dirt who accused parents of been actors having only recently buried their murdered children is one I can agree with.

People have such a high level of entitlement.
Click to expand...

Yes thank you for repeating what the rights of a private company are, I obviously wasn't aware of them, it's only been pointed out about 50 times, including in the post you quoted by myself.

By the way, it's "being", not "been". He accused them of being actors.
 
StriderX said:
No it shouldn't i though the right wing believed in small government and lack of regulations?

But as soon as it hurts Wittle ol' far-right loonies, REEEEEEEEEEEEEE. I truly welcome the corporate hegemony that is coming, why don't you, or are you indeed a communist instead? /s
Click to expand...
Hahaha! Don't think the /s is need with a "ree" in. Although yes I would be a communist in this discussion :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom