Alex Jones..

[jsmoke]

Out of interest are football fans still as bad for hate speech as they were in the 80's/90's?

I was going to say if you want nasty hate speech then go to a football game, a derby or some big rival match. Jones may say a lot but it's not a nasty or vicious type of hate.

Just for reference his first court hearing to see if a Sandy hook lawsuit can be dismissed is the 1st Sep and the Gilmore suit on the 13th Nov.

 

[Yadda]

It’s all a false flag, he’s deleted his own content and hired crisis actors to pretend they work for YouTube and Facebook.

Perfect.

 

[Werewolf]

OCUK is typically more intelligent and reasonable than other forums so this doesn't apply here (I hope), but anyone who thinks that AJ should be de-platformed is a damned idiot.

We've entered a time where the ability to voice your opinions freely must be enforced and social media platforms should have to abide by the The First Amendment or otherwise we're heading towards dark times.

If social media platforms have to abide by the first amendment, is the US government going to take them over and pay for their running costs when the advertisers refuse to pay for the likes of Jones, or have anything to do with the sites that provide him with the platform?

What you are suggesting is that the Government takes over any media company that gets to a certain size because "first amendment for all, regardless of how scummy and off putting they are" and continuing in business don't always go together.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

OCUK is typically more intelligent and reasonable than other forums so this doesn't apply here (I hope), but anyone who thinks that AJ should be de-platformed is a damned idiot.

We've entered a time where the ability to voice your opinions freely must be enforced and social media platforms should have to abide by the The First Amendment or otherwise we're heading towards dark times.

1. AJ has plenty of other platforms to go to. Youtube is a company and has the right to remove him, that simple. If you removed that right from a business, you could really take the **** and force them to host all sorts of content that would put off advertisers and viewers.

2. We live in a time where you can voice your opinion freely but this does not mean forcing entities to host your opinions or forcing people to listen to them.

3. Also forcing social media to obey the first amendment... So much silly in this statement to answer on a Friday afternoon

 

[StriderX]

If social media platforms have to abide by the first amendment, is the US government going to take them over and pay for their running costs when the advertisers refuse to pay for the likes of Jones, or have anything to do with the sites that provide him with the platform?

What you are suggesting is that the Government takes over any media company that gets to a certain size because "first amendment for all, regardless of how scummy and off putting they are" and continuing in business don't always go together.

It's honestly beyond hypocritical for anyone of a "right-wing" persuasion to be offering this level of government interference in social/corporate matters, but considering this all seems to stem from conspiracy nuts like Jones and idiots that pervade in the GOP, i'm not surprised.

Either you let businesses get on with their business or you pay for them as a public service, there is no middle ground, unless you're China.

It's the very same people who go on and on about the police wasting their time on racists and nutters on social media who've literally given the police the evidence they need, for them to moan about this is hilariously unsound. I'm all for our corporate overlords taking over if people are willing to admit it.

 

[TheVoice]

OCUK is typically more intelligent and reasonable than other forums so this doesn't apply here (I hope), but anyone who thinks that AJ should be de-platformed is a damned idiot.

We've entered a time where the ability to voice your opinions freely must be enforced and social media platforms should have to abide by the The First Amendment or otherwise we're heading towards dark times.

He can voice his opinions freely via his many other platforms, social media should absolutely not be compelled or coerced into giving him - or others like him - yet another channel with which to spread his nonsense.

 

[mmj_uk]

They need to just define all areas of the internet where discussion/interaction takes place as public spaces, no censorship allowed unless it breaks laws and if places like OCUK don't like it then simply don't have a forum.

It is a type of Fascism when you have privately owned businesses such as Facebook/Twitter/Youtube in bed with governments (or in the current climate the out of power lefty deep state/establishment) and censoring certain viewpoints for them, punishing people for wrongthink by taking away their right to free speech even though they have not broken any laws or even if they have not been given a fair trial.

I've never really followed Alex Jones but it's a case of where it's going to lead, conservatives have been getting demonitised on platforms like Youtube for a long time now already - most of them switched to other methods of 'making a living' by accepting donations from third party websites so it didn't really stop them but now those places are trying to outright block them. Dangerous times in my view.

 

[StriderX]

Holy ****, the deep state. The discussion is over folks.

Oh wait, Trump and the GOP are in office... why would they tell Mr Zuck, Mrs Wojcicki, Mr Cook and so forth to ban him?

OH WAIT!

 

[RaohNS]

Holy ****, the deep state. The discussion is over folks.

Are you saying it doesn't exist?

 

[Werewolf]

They need to just define all areas of the internet where discussion/interaction takes place as public spaces, no censorship allowed unless it breaks laws and if places like OCUK don't like it then simply don't have a forum.

It is a type of Fascism when you have privately owned businesses such as Facebook/Twitter/Youtube in bed with governments (or in the current climate the out of power lefty deep state/establishment) and censoring certain viewpoints for them, punishing people for wrongthink by taking away their right to free speech.

I've never really followed Alex Jones but it's a case of where it's going to lead, conservatives have been getting demonitised on platforms like Youtube for a long time now already - most of them have found other methods of accepting donations so it didn't really stop them but now those places are trying to outright block them. Dangerous times in my view.

So you're saying it's someone's government mandated right to make use of privately owned, privately paid for services?

Great, does that mean I can use your car to drive to work next week, after all freedom of movement is right up their with freedom of speech and the only difference between a company provided service and one from an individual is a matter of scale.

Am I the only one being slightly amused by this whole arguement that the government should basically take over or force private companies to provide services that cost money for nothing to people who are actively hurting their business?

 

[TheVoice]

They need to just define all areas of the internet where discussion/interaction takes place as public spaces, no censorship allowed unless it breaks laws and if places like OCUK don't like it then simply don't have a forum.

How can it be a public space if you have to register to join and participate? Why should any business - OcUK, Facebook, whoever - pay to provide a service over which they have no ability to control the content in order to protect themselves and their users from potential harm? Have you actually considered this for more than 3 seconds?

I thought the crazy people like Jones usually want less Government interference, not more.

 

[Danny75]

Interesting video interview between Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore about the Alex Jones situation.

An interesting interview;

Sure was. Thank you for sharing.

He can voice his opinions freely via his many other platforms, social media should absolutely not be compelled or coerced into giving him - or others like him - yet another channel with which to spread his nonsense.

I agree they should not be coerced. But they are being coerced. This comes hot on the heels of those hearings where some Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans have slammed social media companies and told them "you have failed" (they can't accept responsibility for their own failures) and you "need to do more". As Matt Taibi has said, some politicians don't want to curtail social medias' powers, they want to wield it and aim it. Ex-government/deep state people like Henry Kissinger and Michael Chertoff are now giving "advice" to companies like Youtube on behalf of the Atlantic Council, on who is guilty of hate speech or not. Double standards are well in play.

Ultimately I agree that if they don't like it, they should build another platform or move to another, purely because it doesn't make sense to ball and chain yourself and have to beg your platform masters with an obvious bias to treat you fairly.

 

[StriderX]

Are you saying it doesn't exist?

 

[IronWarrior]

If social media platforms have to abide by the first amendment, is the US government going to take them over and pay for their running costs when the advertisers refuse to pay for the likes of Jones, or have anything to do with the sites that provide him with the platform?

What you are suggesting is that the Government takes over any media company that gets to a certain size because "first amendment for all, regardless of how scummy and off putting they are" and continuing in business don't always go together.

Most of these social media platforms are already subsidised by the US government in different ways.

3. Also forcing social media to obey the first amendment... So much silly in this statement to answer on a Friday afternoon

There is nothing silly about that, you obey the laws that country has.

Some examples is Google being forced to redesign it's search engine to operate in China. Twitter is censored in Russia, Turkey, China and many other countries. UK and US are really no different, Israel likes to throw their weight around at social media when they see something they don't like.

For example, Israel complained about a recent Gaza BBC headline and the BBC changed it for them.

Today, I read that a Turkish court complained to Twitter about two Twitter posts from a user called Syrian Civil War maps because they complained it "it's threatens their national security" It didn't.

Turkey is pretty problematic with Youtube and Twitter, forcing these companies to obey them or they threaten to turn them off in their countries.

Let's be realistic here, Google, Apple, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are huge, they are powerful, even if you don't use any, the next person is likely is, their platforms can sway political views. (Russia Russia Russia, say it 3 times and it becomes true).


This part isn't directly addressed to you.


When does this stop? Should ISP's and Phone networks or even city services start cutting people off because it breaks their "terms of conditions" because they don't like what the person is saying and that they are a private company?

Maybe the train services should deny you service too, do you like flying? (´• ω •`)

Why is Buzzfeed allowed to stay? Their CEO made a tweet telling people to kill "white man" on your way to work tomorrow.

No one forced anyone to watch Alex, I never watched him.

It's hypocrisy, hypocrisy everywhere.

 

[TheVoice]

There is nothing silly about that, you obey the laws that country has.

The law doesn't say that private companies are obliged to give you a space in which to say or do whatever you want. Jones has been removed from these platforms in the same way that he'd be kicked out of Tesco for standing at the Produce section spouting the same rubbish.

When does this stop? Should ISP's and Phone networks or even city services start cutting people off because it breaks their "terms of conditions" because they don't like what the person is saying and that they are a private company?

I'm not sure most ISPs really cares what you're saying nor do they have a way to enforce it themselves, but if they want to terminate your service for a particular reason I'm sure they'd find a way.

Maybe the train services should deny you service too, do you like flying? (´• ω •`)

Shouting "Sandy Hook was a hoax!" whilst your face turns the colour of beetroot will probably see your train being met in by the police at the next station.

Why is Buzzfeed allowed to stay? Their CEO made a tweet telling people to kill "white man" on your way to work tomorrow.

Do cite your source, Google can't seem to find any evidence of that.

All these comparisons are a bit disingenuous really, you're clearly trying to suggest that it's a slippery slope when really, it's just someone spouting lies and hate being removed from platforms whose rules he failed to comply with. Jones was using these services to make money, be it directly via ad revenue or indirectly by luring people into his other platforms where he peddles his supplements and survival supplies.

 

[RaohNS]

Lol

 

[jsmoke]

The law doesn't say that private companies are obliged to give you a space in which to say or do whatever you want. Jones has been removed from these platforms in the same way that he'd be kicked out of Tesco for standing at the Produce section spouting the same rubbish.



I'm not sure most ISPs really cares what you're saying nor do they have a way to enforce it themselves, but if they want to terminate your service for a particular reason I'm sure they'd find a way.



Shouting "Sandy Hook was a hoax!" whilst your face turns the colour of beetroot will probably see your train being met in by the police at the next station.



Do cite your source, Google can't seem to find any evidence of that.

All these comparisons are a bit disingenuous really, you're clearly trying to suggest that it's a slippery slope when really, it's just someone spouting lies and hate being removed from platforms whose rules he failed to comply with. Jones was using these services to make money, be it directly via ad revenue or indirectly by luring people into his other platforms where he peddles his supplements and survival supplies.

But there hasn't actually been a reason given from Google et al as to why Jones was banned. In his last strike he was given a specific reason. Now on the same day as 6 families file law suits for deformation regarding Sandy Hook the 3 big platforms ban him. Worried about getting dragged through court and held responsible for all content on your site much?

Worried about a bill of internet right being introduced so that internet content providers are treated differently from regular businesses much?

Jones certainly has to make a living.

These suit hearings could be monumental.

The root of it all is money as usual.

 

[Werewolf]

Jones certainly has to make a living.
l.

He may have to make a living

No one else has to assist him in doing that.

My neighbour has to make a living as a mechanic, I don't have to let him park on my drive to do so, nor does my local tesco have give over some of it's car park for him to work on them/store them..

You're also right about money being at the root of it as usual, in this instance it's a frothing at the mouth conman selling cheap tat to people too dim to get a passing grade at middle school science using conspiracy theories and hate aimed at the victims of unspeakable trauma as his chosen branding and adverting methods.

No one else is required to pay anything towards his ability to earn money, and certainly no one else is obliged to risk their own businesses or money by supporting his adverting, especially when his victims start to take action against him.

 

[SlyReaper]

The Streisand Effect in full swing.

 

[dowie]

The Streisand Effect in full swing.

The app has surged in popularity in recent days from the 47th to the 4th most popular Apple store news app in the United States. That position places Inforwars over CNN, Fox News and The New York Times's apps, according to app analytics site, App Annie.

holy ****

folk are really keen to read about lizard people it seems ....