Alex Jones..

But this is all just your perception of it. You seem to claim bias without actually proving it. As someone pointed out in this thread a few posts ago a left leaning Youtube was banned for breaking their terms of service also. Furthermore, even if there was bias, it doesn't even matter because they can decide who uses their services and what they don't want posted on their website.

Once again with this "instead people using these global social media platforms, should learn to deal with things they find offensive without relying on some sort of higher authority to sanitise everything for them -" you have seemingly overlooked the money making aspect of their business. Many of the terms in question will be in there because to have that sort of thing on the platform harms advertising revenue. Also, so what if Facebook and Youtube want to make a platform where people don't have to put up with Alex Jones' nonsense? Alex Jones isnt banned from the internet or banned from talking. You simply can't see his stuff on certain websites. Seriously, what is the big deal? Youtube and Facebook do not want to be associated with him and that is that.

Alex Jones has repeatedly and without question violated their terms of service. The reason he has most likely been singled out, is that he is more well known than most, so naturally complaints about his violations of the terms of service will be larger. He has therefore been highlighted as an abuser of said terms more frequently and so obviously Facebook/Youtube etc have taken action.

Think that's the whole point though that many people violate the T & C's yet only certain people are picked on, making it favouritism in order to protect the company.

So it's selective free speech on the condition that your not to influential regarding elections yet the mainstream media have many more leftist news channels.

Too much media bias toward the left. You think AJ spouts hatred there are many first hand accounts of hate speech from HRC that dwarf anything AJ has said they are just very careful to do it being closed doors. They spout real hate.
 
Think that's the whole point though that many people violate the T & C's yet only certain people are picked on, making it favouritism in order to protect the company.

So it's selective free speech on the condition that your not to influential regarding elections yet the mainstream media have many more leftist news channels.

Too much media bias toward the left. You think AJ spouts hatred there are many first hand accounts of hate speech from HRC that dwarf anything AJ has said they are just very careful to do it being closed doors. They spout real hate.

Ignoring the small timers who Youtube don't care about anyway (because they've demonitised them by default), who exactly is getting away with murder here?
 
Think that's the whole point though that many people violate the T & C's yet only certain people are picked on, making it favouritism in order to protect the company.

So it's selective free speech on the condition that your not to influential regarding elections yet the mainstream media have many more leftist news channels.

Too much media bias toward the left. You think AJ spouts hatred there are many first hand accounts of hate speech from HRC that dwarf anything AJ has said they are just very careful to do it being closed doors. They spout real hate.

please present your evidence as the post you are responding to points out you keep not doing.

I can assert things without evidence too:
-the mainstream media have many more 'rightist' news channels
-too much media bias toward the right

and frankly just lol at the HRC vs AJ....frankly you strike me as someone who thinks voting trump over hilary was anything other than completely retarded and somehow morally justified...just lol
 
Last edited:
Think that's the whole point though that many people violate the T & C's yet only certain people are picked on, making it favouritism in order to protect the company.

So it's selective free speech on the condition that your not to influential regarding elections yet the mainstream media have many more leftist news channels.

Too much media bias toward the left. You think AJ spouts hatred there are many first hand accounts of hate speech from HRC that dwarf anything AJ has said they are just very careful to do it being closed doors. They spout real hate.
Many people may break the T&C, but how high profile are they and how likely are they to scare off advertisers, or even be noticed?

Someone with 5 subscribers and an average of 20 views per video is far less likely to be noticed (and advertisers aren't going to care about them much), compared to someone with 50k subscribers and half a million views per video.

When you get high profile what you are saying, and when you break the rules becomes far more obvious and likely to be noticed, especially if the operators of a site become aware of the fact you're in legal trouble over what you've said (at which point they'll probably start checking to make sure they aren't going to be named in any lawsuits and actively monitor your activities on their service).
 
Think that's the whole point though that many people violate the T & C's yet only certain people are picked on, making it favouritism in order to protect the company.

Someone like Alex Jones likely had his terms of service violations highlighted many more times than other people with only a few subscribers. It might not technically be "favouritism" , just statistics at play..

But even if it was, it is their own company and they can do what they want within the law. Why would they not want to protect themselves and their own prosperity?

Again you seem to think freedom of speech allows you to say anything, anywhere. It doesn't. You can't come into my home and spout rubbish. I would ask you to leave. I would protect your right to say what you want in your own home though.
 
But this is all just your perception of it. You seem to claim bias without actually proving it. As someone pointed out in this thread a few posts ago a left leaning Youtube was banned for breaking their terms of service also. Furthermore, even if there was bias, it doesn't even matter because they can decide who uses their services and what they don't want posted on their website.

To be fair, their twitter account got suspended, I know stacks of random people who've had their accounts temporarily suspended for one reason or another, twitter is a bit mental when it comes to account suspensions tbh. FYI for what it's worth Alex Jone's twitter account is up and running right now.

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones

Once again with this "instead people using these global social media platforms, should learn to deal with things they find offensive without relying on some sort of higher authority to sanitise everything for them -" you have seemingly overlooked the money making aspect of their business. Many of the terms in question will be in there because to have that sort of thing on the platform harms advertising revenue. Many companies won't want their products associated with anything to do with him so why should they pay to host his videos and views if they arent getting any money in return from advertising? Also, so what if Facebook and Youtube want to make a platform where people don't have to put up with Alex Jones' nonsense? Alex Jones isnt banned from the internet or banned from talking. You simply can't see his stuff on certain websites. Seriously, what is the big deal? Youtube and Facebook do not want to be associated with him and that is that.

Alex Jones has repeatedly and without question violated their terms of service. The reason he has most likely been singled out, is that he is more well known than most, so naturally complaints about his violations of the terms of service will be larger. He has therefore been highlighted as an abuser of said terms more frequently and so obviously Facebook/Youtube etc have taken action.

If Facebook and Youtube want to make a platform where people don't have to put up with things like Alex Jones, then they're well within their rights to do that - but I think it's a mistake and I think they've embarked upon a difficult road. The amount of decisions they're going to need to make are infinite - essentially, it won't ever be fair - (as evidenced with groups such as Antifa and other dodgy groups where we both agree - the policy isn't working, or being applied fairly)

I think as far as advertising goes, - yes I understand that Youtube/Facebook/Etc have to make money, however we could get to a stage where the only content that's allowed on the platform is there to appease advertising companies, in the sense that anything that's controversial or naughty gets denoted or removed because nobody wants to have their advertisements associated with it (regardless of the amount of clicks)

We could end up with a situation where people start to lose trust in Social Media because the platforms are there for the advertisers, not for the consumers or content producers, trying to perform censorship like this - in a world where the definition of something offensive, changes every other day, might drive people away from the platforms - or cause different platforms to be created that become safe-havens for maniacs.

Interesting argument on Bill Maher;

 
To be fair, their twitter account got suspended, I know stacks of random people who've had their accounts temporarily suspended for one reason or another, twitter is a bit mental when it comes to account suspensions tbh. FYI for what it's worth Alex Jone's twitter account is up and running right now.

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones



If Facebook and Youtube want to make a platform where people don't have to put up with things like Alex Jones, then they're well within their rights to do that - but I think it's a mistake and I think they've embarked upon a difficult road. The amount of decisions they're going to need to make are infinite - essentially, it won't ever be fair - (as evidenced with groups such as Antifa and other dodgy groups where we both agree - the policy isn't working, or being applied fairly)

I think as far as advertising goes, - yes I understand that Youtube/Facebook/Etc have to make money, however we could get to a stage where the only content that's allowed on the platform is there to appease advertising companies, in the sense that anything that's controversial or naughty gets denoted or removed because nobody wants to have their advertisements associated with it (regardless of the amount of clicks)

We could end up with a situation where people start to lose trust in Social Media because the platforms are there for the advertisers, not for the consumers or content producers, trying to perform censorship like this - in a world where the definition of something offensive, changes every other day, might drive people away from the platforms - or cause different platforms to be created that become safe-havens for maniacs.

Interesting argument on Bill Maher;


Start? Have you seemingly been blind to the current calamity lately?...

They're losing trust BECAUSE of the people like Jones* mouthing off and creating a hostile environment (like yon Youtube comment section, or indeed everywhere before/after Trump/Brexit), I think honestly the bigger danger is allowing idiots a platform, we cannot allow it for much longer clearly if the Anti-vaxxer crowd are anything to go by, in the active murder of their own children.

It might seem difficult to understand, but most people are fed up of both extreme ends of the spectrum and just want rid of it, there's the bigger market appeal for big corporate entities and advertisers.

*By this i don't just mean CT nutjob weirdos, i mean the whole enterprise in messing up the west by using racism and classism to pit people against one another to the huge advantage of belligerent states.
 
I think the social media companies went down the wrong path when they started to become ideologically driven instead of just being a social media website.

People on ALL sides of the debate and people not political are being booted off. Some of the videos deemed advertiser unfriendly haven't been published and some of them are of games. What is more interesting is that one advertiser wanted to advertise on gamers videos and filled the form in to allow that but their advert never got put on any.

I'm not buying it from Youtube about advertising. They have had plenty of opportunity to bring out Youtube Red/Premium for years, and when it finally comes they are charging £11.99 per month. Apparently if you want to download your own videos from the site, after downloading 5 (per day) they want to charge you for it.
 
I think the social media companies went down the wrong path when they started to become ideologically driven instead of just being a social media website.

People on ALL sides of the debate and people not political are being booted off. Some of the videos deemed advertiser unfriendly haven't been published and some of them are of games. What is more interesting is that one advertiser wanted to advertise on gamers videos and filled the form in to allow that but their advert never got put on any.

I'm not buying it from Youtube about advertising. They have had plenty of opportunity to bring out Youtube Red/Premium for years, and when it finally comes they are charging £11.99 per month. Apparently if you want to download your own videos from the site, after downloading 5 (per day) they want to charge you for it.

"Started"?

You realise these companies more or less started with 1 or 2 people right? Who would have their own views right? That may or may not translate into the company ethos... right? Companies aren't some entirely emotionless entity, they should be, but that's asking far too much.

The fact is that advertising giants (i have no idea what the shadowy motivations are behind the scenes, could be anything from Israeli lobbyists, Saudi funds, other silicon valley firms, cable companies etc) can easily motivate a company that relies almost entirely on their money. So if Youtube had to change it's site for them vs changing it for the users... it's the Advertisers every time.

It almost certainly is not about their interior idealogy, they've been forced to act when they didn't want to (because it's effort and a waste of time), and chose some pretty aggravating solutions to keep the money flowing in. I'd hazard they're spending a great deal of time trying to put out fires before they begin at this point.
 
Last edited:
You realise these companies more or less started with 1 or 2 people right? Who would have their own views right? That may or may not translate into the company ethos... right? Companies aren't some entirely emotionless entity, they should be, but that's asking far too much.

Companies should always try and be professional i.e. maintain neutrality. Everyone has their bias on different subjects. But the objective should be to counter them. If they don't then they will end up moving towards an extreme position.

The fact is that advertising giants (i have no idea what the shadowy motivations are behind the scenes, could be anything from Israeli lobbyists, Saudi funds, other silicon valley firms, cable companies etc) can easily motivate a company that relies almost entirely on their money. So if Youtube had to change it's site for them vs changing it for the users... it's the Advertisers every time.

I agree with this. That is the problem. It is becoming obvious that getting advertising money is more important to them than the people who actually made youtube, the content creators.

It almost certainly is not about their interior idealogy, they've been forced to act when they didn't want to (because it's effort and a waste of time), and chose some pretty aggravating solutions to keep the money flowing in. I'd hazard they're spending a great deal of time trying to put out fires before they begin at this point.

They could have brought in Youtube Red/Premium literally years ago and offered it for around 4.99 per month. That would have been a reasonable price, and I would have paid it. But I'm thinking they must be making so much money from advertisers that even a reasonable subscription fee can't match it. They are being hollowed out for the money.

There's a plugin for Firefox that allows you to download yt videos.

I think downloading videos by a method not controlled by them is against the T&C.

https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/how-to/internet/is-it-legal-download-youtube-videos-3420353/

The guy ended up leaving youtube because the bot decided to go through all his videos from years ago and picked out the title names on some of them to strike his channel. The titles werent offensive but its obvious a bot doesnt get context.

I've noticed quite a few videos attacking Alex Jones and agreeing with Youtube (a position taken by people on the thread), their videos got demonetized. I'm sure you guys are aware of H3H3 got a strike during a live broadcast when he mentioned Alex Jones and was making fun of him and agreeing with youtube. Not good PR. But if it doesnt affect dat advertising $$ they don't care.
 
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.

More censorship needed.......
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032937718219714560

Donald Trump said:
“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......

....FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!
 
Meanwhile, one of Alex Jones' hosts has announced that Hurricane Lane has been split in half by an energy beam fired from Antarctica, possibly by John Kerry.

But Trump's supporters insist that CNN is the real 'fake news media.'

:rolleyes:
 
In a brilliant twist, whilst showing off his new site it was shown he had a tab open with transgender porn on it.

Shock as the most out spoken secretly bust a nut to the very thing they whine about..

Inb4 'it was for research purposes'
 
In a brilliant twist, whilst showing off his new site it was shown he had a tab open with transgender porn on it.

Shock as the most out spoken secretly bust a nut to the very thing they whine about..

Inb4 'it was for research purposes'

What you find with almost all these people, is that it is all projection.
 
Back
Top Bottom