Because he, or his minions, would be yapping non-stop about it if he had.
Edit:
Surely you don't mean how do I know Obama isn't a radical Muslim?
If you do, just watch this and give your head a wobble.
Last edited:
Alex Jones..
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
Because he, or his minions, would be yapping non-stop about it if he had.
Edit:
Surely you don't mean how do I know Obama isn't a radical Muslim?
If you do, just watch this and give your head a wobble.
Commissario
I know, we've not even had Michelle Obama parade around naked in front of Fox nex cameras to prove she isn't really a man!
Caporegime
Lol are you for real?? Honestly I think sometimes you are just trolling for the sake of trolling.
How many times did we see Obama going to church?? Not a mosque nor did he pray 5 times a day.
Alex Jones is a mentally deranged idiot, he’s a danger to society as a whole with the constant stupid idiotic and downright offensive things he says.
The world would be a better place without him polluting it with his craziness.
Man of Honour
How do you know he isn't a Klingon in disguise? How do you know he isn't Zeus manifesting on Earth to have a look around after being on holiday for a couple of millenia?
Caporegime
They're social media, not the Guardians of Internet Wisdom. No, I don't care that a handful of companies control photos of people's lunches, and dull anecdotes about their mundane lives. You're not forced to use their services, so what exactly is the issue here?
Caporegime
No argument that he's deranged in his own way, hilarious as I find him. But given the circumstances - that the world is also filled with crazy people who order the invasion and destabilization of other countries, and crazy people who obey those orders, a good argument could be made for the world not being a better place. He's extremely anti-war and anti-US imperialism/expansionism. Always has been. When Trump ordered those strikes in Syria, Jones went ballistic and accused him of betraying his base and risking WWIII. If he's a danger because of his influence, however much that may be, the absence of him would also be a danger and encourage Trump to follow in the footsteps of the lunatics Bush and Obama and do everything the Deep State wants.
Here's a legit question as well - if the media truly is concerned about his influence because they actually care about the truth, and innocent people being put in harm's way, then why continue to claim that Jones says nobody was killed at Sandy Hook? Aren't they doing a greater evil than Jones, who initially (foolishly) said he believed that but quickly changed his mind and retracted it years ago? Plenty of his listeners seem to believe nobody was killed anyway, regardless of Jones' retraction. So why doesn't the media do a better job of pointing out Jones' retraction, instead of deceiving people that it is still his opinion?
I'm more concerned about mentally deranged people in power who successfully hide that fact from their followers. And governments who authorize weapons sales/transfers to jihadi outfits and Saudi Arabia to enable atrocities to be committed, all for filthy lucre. Jones has done nothing even remotely close to that. So when you talk about polluting with craziness, let's start with the big fish mmkay?
Soldato
It's actually not that unusual a position to take, in situations where companies hold a monopolistic position the various regulatory authorities might ask them to take steps to promote competition. In the extreme that usually means divesting but it can also mean removing barriers to entry or taking action which directly supports smaller competitors. The real question here is whether or not a monopoly or an oligarchy exists and whether it poses a risk to consumer welfare.
I could see there being rules brought in soon that mirror the powers of the CMA and other bodies but relating specifically to things like availability of media through multiple platforms.
Alex Jones aside it does nobody any favours to end up in a situation where 2 massive conglomerates control the vast majority of online video hosting. I'm not saying we're there yet but in 10 years who knows? Even if you assume the entities are benevolent it's still not a great position to be in.
To be clear this is just a wider conversation, I don't have any real view on the Alex Jones stuff, he violated the various terms of service, ergo he is banned.
I agree with your point about regulators stepping in to prevent monopolies, but as you said as well, we aren't quite there yet. I would say Amazon is likely to get there before some of the others, just given the range of services they are offering.
Even if they were directed to taking action supporting smaller competitors (do you have any examples of this by the way? Not doubting you - just hadn't come across this particular 'remedy' and would be interesting to learn more about where it's happened/how it's been implemented. I've read about divesting happening, but not direct support of competitors), that wouldn't address the wider issue here of them being allowed to dictate who does/doesn't use their platform. Unless it's ended up as being classified as a utility that someone above suggested, I don't see a scenario where that would happen through competition regulators. Even if divested, it still means that the smaller companies can choose to ban the same user.
How would that work? Youtube/Google and Twitch/Amazon don't make any money (seemingly), how exactly do you spin it so these companies... "share"?
Soldato
So in terms of the support for competitora i was referring, quite clumsily, to areas where the barrier to entry is specifically due to the monopoly controlling some for of infrastructure. An example would be Microsoft being forced to package browsers other than ie with windows builds or a telecoms company being forced to share their infrastructure (at a fair price), less support really and more levelling of the playing field.
This doesn't tackle the issue of who gets to use the platform but it lowers the risk of one or two providers controlling all of the market and therefore being able to exclude completely. The other way round is like you say, rule that the service is so vital that it should effectively be a right, for instance a water company cannot cut you off, they can only restrict flow.
You don't need to make money to be fined, and markets don't necessarily need to be profit making in themselves, i need to look up how it works for other broadcasters to see if the same rules apply. Also you don't spin, you work with the compaby but ultimately penalise non compliance, they're regulators after all.
At the moment i'm not sure we have regulations robust enough to cover this, i don't think we are in a situation where we'd need to rely on them right now anyway but it will be interesying to see how it all evolves, especially as google and amazon et al continue to grow.
It's a moot point now really as i don't think we have a monopoly or oligarchy especially given the different types of media, interesting to think about though.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,498
Great shame infowars got taken down cross platform
Find alex jones can be somewhat controversial though at times both funny and hilarious (joe rogan speaks well of him)
Haven't listened to him in a while though am making a point now of doing so.
IW does get some good guests on the show...listening recently to one of the Benghazi veterans.
Find alex jones can be somewhat controversial though at times both funny and hilarious (joe rogan speaks well of him)
IW does get some good guests on the show...listening recently to one of the Benghazi veterans.
Oh jesus christ stop it with Benghazi... How many conspiracies do you believe?
Permabanned
Alex JonesVerified account @RealAlexJones 34m34 minutes ago
http://Infowars.com has been taken down! The deep state working with the democrats are making their move against America! http://Newswars.com and http://prisonplanet.com are up and fighting!
http://Infowars.com has been taken down! The deep state working with the democrats are making their move against America! http://Newswars.com and http://prisonplanet.com are up and fighting!
Eh? You can click on the link, it isn't down at all... it just has some message claiming they're "under attack"
He'd been saying the server hosting company was looking at taking them off as well. Apparently he still owns the URL so IF that's now happened (no confirmation) then he's presumably moved to another host, hence the link will still open but only to new content, I imagine, till they upload all their backups. Or it's just Jones' melodrama.
Vimeo has also banned them.
Rumour has it Trump is about to declassify some stuff on the collusion investigation regarding Bruce Ohr, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele etc. The timing for this could also be part of an attempt to limit the reach of this information. Jones has been Jones for decades, so why now, and why so coordinated, is a legit question. I suppose the proof will be if the big media networks touch said information with a barge-pole, or not. "They are free to publish whatever they want" won't really wash as an excuse, even if legally accurate. What's evident is they have not been covering the revelations about corruption within the FBI and collusion with the DNC and abuse of the FISA court as diligently as one might expect from a "free press". And that's the argument Devin Nunes is using as the reason/excuse for asking Trump to just declassify said info and let the people decide.
It's actually rather amusing that the pro-Trump Republicans are now getting into full swing with spinning the collusion investigation as "Russian propaganda created the Trump dossier for Democrats to spy on Trump". The collusion there would be easier to prove, even if it started in the opposite direction, i.e. Democrats looking for Russian sources for dirt on Trump. The Democrats have kindly painted Russia as trying to interfere, and it looks like this will now be used against them. That Republicans were accepting that Russia had tried to interfere, should have served as a warning to the Democrats as to their game-plan.
Vimeo has also banned them.
Rumour has it Trump is about to declassify some stuff on the collusion investigation regarding Bruce Ohr, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele etc. The timing for this could also be part of an attempt to limit the reach of this information. Jones has been Jones for decades, so why now, and why so coordinated, is a legit question. I suppose the proof will be if the big media networks touch said information with a barge-pole, or not. "They are free to publish whatever they want" won't really wash as an excuse, even if legally accurate. What's evident is they have not been covering the revelations about corruption within the FBI and collusion with the DNC and abuse of the FISA court as diligently as one might expect from a "free press". And that's the argument Devin Nunes is using as the reason/excuse for asking Trump to just declassify said info and let the people decide.
It's actually rather amusing that the pro-Trump Republicans are now getting into full swing with spinning the collusion investigation as "Russian propaganda created the Trump dossier for Democrats to spy on Trump". The collusion there would be easier to prove, even if it started in the opposite direction, i.e. Democrats looking for Russian sources for dirt on Trump. The Democrats have kindly painted Russia as trying to interfere, and it looks like this will now be used against them. That Republicans were accepting that Russia had tried to interfere, should have served as a warning to the Democrats as to their game-plan.
It's probably related to the Peter Strzok stuff as he's just been fired, probably pre-emptively. The FBI have been using the Mueller investigation to avoid having to answer questions about the Trump campaign FISA/spying, claiming it will hurt Mueller's investigation into Russia collusion and they're only releasing documents after heavily redacting them. Trump has the power to unredact them and it seems like it's the only way congress can get the information that it's been asking for from the FBI.
Caporegime
The site is not down. Jones is claiming it's under DDOS attack, but since he's a crisis actor, it's most likely that this 'takedown' is a false flag orchestrated by Infowars itself.
How is the not-actually-a-takedown of infowars.com related to the firing of Peter Strzok?
Oh no, a DDOS, what a terribly inefficient measure to use that is so prolific that anyone with access to a virus laden computer network can abuse with gleeful abandon. In fact i wouldn't put it past Russian trolls doing that to it's relatively supportive "friend" either to make it look like what you "imply" or just because it's funny.
But of course instead, its just a big conspiracy, tell me was 9/11 fake or perhaps the holocaust too, i mean if one conspiracy is true it must make them all mildly believable?