Alex Jones..

Screeeech said:
I think this is nonsense.

Put yourself in the shoes of an advertising company; You think you're going to care if your ads appear in unsavoury places? Rubbish - ads are there to be seen and clicked on, because they generate revenue - nobody is getting salty and upset because the people doing the clicking happen to be total cretins, their clicks are worth just as much as the next person.
Click to expand...

Not sure if trolling?

Have you had your head in the sand for the last year or so? You don't remember the YouTube fallout? https://www.adweek.com/agencies/fru...s-pulls-u-k-spending-from-google-and-youtube/
 
Marmot said:
Not sure if trolling?

Have you had your head in the sand for the last year or so? You don't remember the YouTube fallout? https://www.adweek.com/agencies/fru...s-pulls-u-k-spending-from-google-and-youtube/
Click to expand...

It was more than just Google that banned him rightly or wrongly within a hour period. They still not said which video etc got him bad and why as they do with all the other infractions they give out.

There was clearly some collusion do de-platform him. Its that the scares the crap out of people. I had never herd of this dude untill all this hit but does seem to be a douche character.

Its the thin end of a very slippery wedge.
 
Screeeech said:
Nobody is 'forcing' these companies to provide any platform at all, they do it to make lots of money and gather information on people, nobody is forcing them to do anything. That said - these companies now find themselves in the position, of exercising far more censorship and real control than any companies or governments who've existed before.

Another problem, is that in the history of things - as far as I can tell, actually de-platforming people has never really solved a problem - there might be a collective sigh of relief when someone swings the ban hammer, but overall - I think trying to silence voices like Alex Jones causes more problems than it solves.
Click to expand...

So I ask again - do you think that Youtube should have to allow Alex Jones to post his videos on their website? Especially when he has his own website?
 
Not sure if this has been posted but Mastercard has forced patreon to remove Robert Spencer from Patreon.
https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1029551216886341634&ref_url=https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/patreon-and-mastercard-ban-robert-spencer-without-explanation
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/patreon-and-mastercard-ban-robert-spencer-without-explanation

Kind of ironic that people are supporting the Alex Jones ban then in the same breath they support punching someone because they have different opinion to them. Go Google unsleeved media/the quartering and see where all this punch a nazi stuff has lead to.
 
JRS said:
So I ask again - do you think that Youtube should have to allow Alex Jones to post his videos on their website? Especially when he has his own website?
Click to expand...
IMO as long as he is not actively breaking rules of the country or encouraging other to do so. Yes he can stay.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
IMO as long as he is not actively breaking rules of the country or encouraging other to do so. Yes he can stay.
Click to expand...

Okay. So in order to protect Alex Jones' ability to post trash on more parts of the internet, you're advocating forcing a company to allow him onto their platform even when his content violates their terms of use. Excellent.
 
Becoming less and less tolerant towards people like him and his many braying supporters as I get older.

I wish we would stop putting the comfort of hateful **** stains above the people they consistently try to dehumanize.
 
angel102 said:
If I was livestreaming BT Sports to other people for less money than they would have to pay BT then yes, I would fully expect BT to cut me off, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they did so.
Click to expand...

The equal to this would be if BT said "oh you can livestream and charge for it". But when you did, because they didn't like you personally they cut you off and said "but you livestreamed too much and charged too much too... bye!"

I get the feeling you know I'm right but your ego isn't letting you say I have a point ;)
 
VincentHanna said:
Exactly, demonising traumatised parents by claiming the deaths of their children is fake isn't anything we should be celebrating as part of "Free speech"
Click to expand...

He wasn't banned for that.

If someone is being slandered or libeled then sue them.

But this is so 1984 and some of the people on the thread need to read that book and then re-read what they are typing.
 
Stop being over dramatic. You put way too much weight into these companies.

These companies are well within their right to refuse service and i am glad they did. They have done the same to youtubers i did like and supported but i still stand by that the company has the right to police its own content.

If the government could force these companies to host this BS, then THAT is a far more dangerous position. At least this way he can just move platform and if he is popular enough, then his fans will follow.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Not sure if this has been posted but Mastercard has forced patreon to remove Robert Spencer from Patreon.
https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1029551216886341634&ref_url=https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/patreon-and-mastercard-ban-robert-spencer-without-explanation
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/patreon-and-mastercard-ban-robert-spencer-without-explanation

Kind of ironic that people are supporting the Alex Jones ban then in the same breath they support punching someone because they have different opinion to them. Go Google unsleeved media/the quartering and see where all this punch a nazi stuff has lead to.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention the MC thing as well, I did try and bring up what happen the quartering but I wasn't direct about.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Businesses can't enforce their own rules, terms and conditions though?
Click to expand...

JRS said:
Okay. So in order to protect Alex Jones' ability to post trash on more parts of the internet, you're advocating forcing a company to allow him onto their platform even when his content violates their terms of use. Excellent.
Click to expand...
They can have their T&C's so long as it doesn't undermine/bypass a countries law.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Like how people put too much weight into the russia rigged the USA election drama?
Click to expand...

Allowing social media companies to police their platforms freely might be able to combat this sort of interference. Forcing platforms to host everything wont

DreadNiK said:
do we have an 'irony meter explosion emote?'
Click to expand...

Isn't it? Banging on about freedom of speech and 1984 but also thinks these private platforms should be forced by the government to host this politically toxic content :rolleyes:
 
Avenged7Fold said:
What law are they breaking then?
Click to expand...
There companies pride themselves on being a place to share information and opinions. By banning opinions they don't like they undermine the laws regarding free speech (or freedom of expression in this country)

As has been pointed out numerous times and as you and other have ignored. Communication has changed and these social platforms are now one of our main method of communication. Banning people because someone, somewhere said something that they didn't like is a slippery slope to far worse things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom