Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,937
Why would I/we care if Young Turks got de-platformed?
Are you being denied his shows if they are on his website?
Are you being denied his shows if they are on his website?
Alex Jones..
- Thread starter Screeeech
- Start date
Soldato
No. They. *******. Aren't. They can go to InfoWars' own website and get all the warped, loopy, conspiracy theorist trash and advertising for dietary supplement products with dubious health benefits that they like.
Soldato
Like i said earlier nothing stopping you guys from boycotting youtube, just dont expect everyone else to join you.
Crack on, the fewer Alex Jones types (or supporters of) on the mainstream social media and video networks, the better it'll be for the rest of us.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
Agreed.
If you both had bothered to read my previous posts you would know I don't like Alex Jones and not listened to him in years. The only time in the last 5 years I've seen his name mentioned is when it popped up that he was being kicked off all social media.
It seems there are an element in the thread who can't get past Alex Jones and look at the bigger picture. I don't think there is much point trying to talk to them.
The reason telecoms companies specifically were mentioned isn't to compare them to social media. It was a question for the people who believe in the principle that any private company has the right to cut you off without recourse. So those people who think that surely wouldn't have an objection to being cut off. I haven't seen one say they would be happy about that, or they thought that was a good thing.
The "bigger picture" fundamentally is that if you break their rules, they have the right to boot you off their service. You've agreed to those rules when signing up or by continuing to use and pay for the service, and you're free to find a provider that doesn't impose such rules if you so desire.
In a previous post on the thread I've said I agree with your position.
The only small but significant issue I have is when you break the rules that you should be told you have broke rule, for example 1. G. - hate speech - because of this video and min/sec in. They do that very thing if you breach a copyright in your video.
I think even on facebook and twitter they sometimes give no reason why an account gets banned. They have a post they made and a place for the reason but I've seen accounts banned and the reason part missing. This is happening across the social spectrum, from the right wing to left wing and people doing no political social commentary. I've seen a few trans and gay people lose their accounts with no reaction from the companies.
I'm sure if me or you made a channel that we'd put in hundreds of hours of footage or posts in to it and suddenly we logged in later on and its gone with no chance of it returning even when we emailed the site I'm sure we'd be very annoyed.
In the political world if you join a party and are removed for no reason you can take them to court for not following their own procedures. There are many cases of this.
If you sign up to the terms and conditions then don't you think those T&C be enforced fairly and properly? That they should be applied the same to everyone?
From what people say Alex Jones could have been kicked off legitimately for many reasons yet from what I've seen there was no example quoted, only the hate speech reason. If you have a link to the official reason and example then please post and I'll give it a read. I've only heard Mueller and Sandy Hook mentioned but from what I can see this is people speculating and not the official reason.
Soldato
yes that element appears to be you, i was simply saying if you dont like the actions of youtube then you always have the option of not using their service/boycotting them.
and why are you wanting/expecting poeple to read and remember every post you ever made????
Soldato
And how do you know that Alex Jones/InfoWars haven't been told in exactly what way they broke the YT rules? Because Lord knows Alex Jones isn't going to stand up and say "here's what I got banned for, here's the reasoning given by YT"...
Facebook maybe, but I'm 9/10ths certain that Twitter give a reason (albeit one that doesn't always make sense) every time. And let's be honest - Twitter standards are such that you really, really, really have to work at getting suspended a lot of the time.
Sure. But that still doesn't make it a censorship or First Amendment issue.
Ye-e-e-es....so which of YT's procedures weren't followed? Same for Apple, Spotify etc. Please enlighten us, preferably with something approaching proof although I won't hold my breath for that
Absolutely! And if Twitter was treating Alex Jones (and, let's be fair, Donald J. Trump!) as they have other accounts they'd be long gone from the platform. But then Twitter's powers-that-be are okay with it being a complete cesspool when that cesspool is driving clicks and advertising dollars.
To be fair, I don't think that's the point in contention; Yes it's their platform, yes they have Ts & Cs, yes if you break those Ts & Cs you can be removed from the platform, - I don't think anybody is arguing that any of that is false.
The question isn't; can or can they not enforce those Ts & Cs? But more given the direction in which society is moving, combined with the size, scale and culture of these platforms, is it good, helpful or useful that they've decided to start imposing censorship and de-platforming people who aren't breaking any laws?
My problem is the arbitrary application of these Ts & Cs, which seem in some cases to be breached - but not in others, for example - everyone is more than happy that Alex Jones has been removed and everyone was also happy when Britain First were removed from Facebook, however Antifa - who have been labelled as domestic terrorists by the US government are still able to use those platforms, yet as so called terrorists, in the eyes of the law they're breaking more rules than Alex Jones, who in my mind - is just a toxic, mental individual with a big mouth.
I think I agree with Jordan Peterson's analysis, in that now these social media companies have stepped in and decided to become the arbiters of what is and what is not allowed, rather than be neutral platforms; they've potentially bitten off more than they can chew. Because once you start censoring one mental group, you have to start censoring them all or it becomes unfair - essentially they'll run out of manpower before they can do it properly, and I think it's a mistake.
I'm worried, that we're removing the ability for people to simply turn things off or look the other way, for me it's far better to engage in debate and defeat it with an opposing narrative, out in the open. Rather than rely on arbitrarily applied filters and policies, to ensure that I'm operating in a 100% trigger-free safe-zone at all times.
I think it's potentially more dangerous to de-platform these groups, and push them into closeted echo-chambers, where their insane views won't be challenged or argued against, in the same way they would be on a large open platform.
Last edited:
What?
I think you are overthinking this and conflating it with some nation/world wide block of Alex Jones' free speech. They are the arbiters of what is and what is not allowed ON THEIR OWN PLATFORM and nowhere else. Alex Jones is not in any way (and rightly so) having his right to free speech taken away from him.
What you seem to be proposing, is that anyone with a website should be allowed to host any content, even if said content is hate speech and threats. That is ridiculous. The fact is, is that Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter can rightly decide what is and what is not hosted on their own website (within the law, and in terms of not being discriminatory).
Do you have a problem with the Overclockers forum censoring this sort of thing as well? Overclockers do it for the exact same reasons that Werewolf further up the page pointed out.
He's just too influential regarding elections also YT & co don't want to be dragged through court regarding responsibility for ALL content on their site.
These people aren't stupid they will have sat down and worked out all possible scenarios with their lawyers and picked this one hoping the whole thing will calm down, i.e the Democrats will stop pressurising or threatening them and the possibility of court will fade away.
Remember up to 8 people are suing AJ's right now and that could open the door to YT getting sued.
These people aren't stupid they will have sat down and worked out all possible scenarios with their lawyers and picked this one hoping the whole thing will calm down, i.e the Democrats will stop pressurising or threatening them and the possibility of court will fade away.
Remember up to 8 people are suing AJ's right now and that could open the door to YT getting sued.
I understand they can allow or deny whatever they wish, arbitrarily on their own platforms, according to their Ts & Cs, that's not the point though - the point is; Is that a good thing?
I'm not arguing that Alex Jones is having his freedom of speech taken away (I don't believe I've said or implied this anywhere), because he can setup his own website and preach nonsense from it. I'm saying that I have concerns around how these rules are applied on these platforms, their effectiveness and their impact on other groups - for example, I assume you're fine with Alex Jones being banned, whilst Antifa post all they like - and use those platforms to organise riots and other such things?
No I'm not - I've said at least four or five times and been very clear, I think that content should be allowed provided it doesn't break the law [which would include types of hate speech and threats]. If Alex Jones has broken the law then he should be blocked/removed - but as far as I can tell he hasn't, however I'd happily stand corrected if he has.
I don't class OCUK censoring swearwords as being a competing argument, merely keeping things family friendly by removing swearwords, isn't de-platforming people, there have been many crazy people filling threads with conspiracy theory nonsense and even posts containing racism by people like a certain Mr Wilson, but they've not been removed.
Last edited:
The other problem is liberal mainstream media bias. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC to name a few.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
AJ is seen as genuine competition to these stations actually getting more views than all of them apparently.
This is another major reason behind his removal.
It's pure conspiracy and damage control they haven't even given a reason and could be sued for that in itself. So nothing to do with T & C's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
AJ is seen as genuine competition to these stations actually getting more views than all of them apparently.
This is another major reason behind his removal.
It's pure conspiracy and damage control they haven't even given a reason and could be sued for that in itself. So nothing to do with T & C's.
Not at all. Is it even true though? Do Antifa publically call for and organise riots on these platforms?
If so, I would have thought publically calling for people to break the law and incite violence would be against their terms, so they should be banned also.
Then you haven't been paying attention. He got banned from Apple and Facebook for breaking their hate speech policies.
It isn't as if they just banned him straight away either. He made repeated violations and had warnings.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/apple-pulls-alex-jones-infowars-podcasts-for-hate-speech.html
What? Alex Jones would have been banned on OCUK in an instant if he posted here, what he posts on other social media platforms.
Jones was banned from Youtube for cyberbullying and harassment. You would get banned from here for the same thing i'm sure.
Yeah there are loads of them, many of which are country specific - but they do contain information about marches, protests, where they're occurring etc, (once you dig through all the other stuff) they've also been the subject of front page global news on a number of occasions, so it's not exactly 'under the radar' so to speak...
https://twitter.com/antifa_riot?lang=en
https://twitter.com/antifausa?lang=en
Of course, we're all able to read between the lines - when they say a protest, or march - we all know exactly what they're angling for (a good punch up)
And so if you think that Antifa or BLM should be banned because they're using these platforms to propagate or incite nastiness, as they evidently do (just like Alex Jones) then surely you see my point, which is these rules, Tc & Cs aren't being applied fairly, aren't being applied according to any coherent framework or authority, they seem to be applied arbitrarily - which they can do, because those platforms are private, but that doesn't seem very 'fair' does it?
Isn't it also interesting, how many of these hard right wing organisations, (Alex Jones, Britain First, etc, etc) get de-platformed, however the hard left ones seem free to go on doing as they please, even when labelled as domestic terrorists.
Even more interesting, is how those large social media and tech companies are jam packed to the rafters with hard left employees, (I work in tech, frequently in Los Angles, San Jose and that area - I have many friends at Facebook, Twitter, Google etc - they're very left leaning organisations, to the point where I think it's become unbalanced) maybe just maybe, that has some influence in how those Ts & Cs are enforced...?
I repeat; did Alex Jones break the law? Was he arrested and charged with any offences? Because as far as I can tell he's only ever been arrested once in his life - a misdemeanour for using a megaphone without a permit.
It's difficult to know, and why the whole OCUK comparison to a social media platform like Facebook is a poor comparison, OCUK isn't really compatible with the sorts of things that Alex Jones does or says, he's basically a TV show that screams nonsense and sells snake oil, you can't really do that on here - the best he could do would be to post nasty things, and as I've pointed out - many people have posted nasty things on here and not been banned, including racist and homophobic things - they're still here though, they just didn't use swear words or threaten individual members.
Ah I see, so you have a preconceived and assumed conclusion that these protests and marches are just riots. That would open up an entirely different can of worms for Youtube/Facebook etc. They are the ones to decide if a protest will end up in violence or not?
Ultimately I agree with you though, if those accounts break their terms of service, they should be banned too.
Yes it is interesting that well educated professionals who work for successful technology companies are more left leaning. Very.
You brought up hate speeches. He was banned for hate speeches, even after warnings etc.
I don't agree with you that the litmus test for being banned from a privately owned social media platform is breaking the law. That is ridiculous.
You are disingenuously downplaying how bad Alex Jones actually is. Without a shadow of a doubt, I think he would be banned from here if he continually posted the same things that he has done in the past. Perhaps a mod could settle this for us?
All of this still doesn't matter, because ultimately, it is their own platform, and they can do what they want (within the law). You simply can't force anyone or any company to give someone else a platform. It is as simple as that.
If Alex Jones wants his own platform, then he can make one.
If his thoughts are so important to so many people, nothing is stopping him making his own social media company to rival Facebook/Twitter etc.
Last edited: