1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Alex Jones Banned From Facebook, Youtube & ITunes

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  389
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
08 August 2018 23:34
 

1.  If anyone can explain what Alex Jones has done that any mainstream media network hasn’t also been guilty of, I would feel much better about this.

2.  Any label you want to put on Alex Jones is a label that can and will be used in the future to stop people from saying anything the tech giants don’t want you to hear.  In the future, they won’t have to wait until said person gets as famous as Alex Jones.

3.  His side of the story now only exists on other peoples’ channels and among the people who already knew him.

4.  This event represents a test - a chance for people to demonstrate where they are on the ideological spectrum.  Would you deny Alex Jones a platform in the Information Age, if YOU had the power to do so?  Why or why not?

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9071
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 01:23
 

Take it up with Apple, Facebook, and YouTube since they did the banning.  Perhaps you can explain why these private companies should not have banned Jones, and why they must allow him to use their services.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5930
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
09 August 2018 01:47
 

I don’t know what a ‘quadrewple’ is but it sounds like something I should feel sorry for. So let’s grant the point that private companies are acting on public pressures and if the public changed its mind, so would the groveling corpos.

There should be an accounting of just what story these folks are telling a side of.

For decades now, I have lobbied for the Truth in Deception Act which sets Federal standards for deceptive practices, requires clear labelimg of deceptive content and sets ever-decreasing standards for percentage of falsehoods and other on-air pollutants.

 
 
Ain Sophistry
 
Avatar
 
 
Ain Sophistry
Total Posts:  126
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
09 August 2018 11:50
 

From Infowars’ own Terms of Service: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkBLLOaXgAAnQQ6.jpg

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2941
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
09 August 2018 12:09
 
Ain Sophistry - 09 August 2018 11:50 AM

From Infowars’ own Terms of Service: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkBLLOaXgAAnQQ6.jpg

This post misses the point of the OP. 

At least for me, OP did not advocate not following terms of service without consequences. It simply implies consequences are unjust. Whether it is Twitter or Facebook, It turns out that hating the wrong people can get you banned. Hating the right people gets you a job at the New York Times!

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  377
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 12:47
 

For anybody who thinks that YouTube should be made to host Jones (or other content), what mechanisms would you propose are suitable for achieving that end?

Everything I can think of could be slandered as socialism.

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 13:19 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6586
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2018 13:33
 
Quadrewple - 08 August 2018 11:34 PM

1.  If anyone can explain what Alex Jones has done that any mainstream media network hasn’t also been guilty of, I would feel much better about this.

2.  Any label you want to put on Alex Jones is a label that can and will be used in the future to stop people from saying anything the tech giants don’t want you to hear.  In the future, they won’t have to wait until said person gets as famous as Alex Jones.

3.  His side of the story now only exists on other peoples’ channels and among the people who already knew him.

4.  This event represents a test - a chance for people to demonstrate where they are on the ideological spectrum.  Would you deny Alex Jones a platform in the Information Age, if YOU had the power to do so?  Why or why not?

On the one hand, you cannot be forced to invite someone to your private party.
On the other hand, FB and twitter and such - IMO - ought to be viewed now, as a part of the commons. It seems preposterous to me that they can be so successful and shirk their societal responsibilities. They are no longer hosting a private party, and so they should be forced to follow the same freedom of speech laws that everyone else does.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  377
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 13:44
 

Ice, see my post above — what is a sensible way to do that?

I don’t think that we (the US) have tried to enforce the idea of freedom of speech on or within private corporations before.  Maybe on telephones, but I’m not sure if there are salient differences here.

In order to avoid some forms of regulation, these companies tend to balk at the idea if being publishers, but I can appreciate arguments that they are.  There is clear evidence that these “platforms” filter content in various ways.  If you take that point of view, then editorial control is as much a freedom of the press issue as a freedom of speech one.

One thing I’m suspicious of is that YouTube is motivated by not wanting to get dragged into the Jones defamation lawsuit, or others that could emerge later.  Do they get legal immunity from such actions in exchange for being a truly free speech forum?

I’ve been listening to some Zeynep Tufekci (UNC prof/researcher).  She focused a bit on YouTube specifically when on the Ezra Klein podcast (if that’s a poison pill, here’s a different lecture I’m part way through https://youtu.be/QIfgq5N5PY4 )

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 14:05 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6586
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2018 13:57
 
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 12:47 PM

For anybody who thinks that YouTube should be made to host Jones (or other content), what mechanisms would you propose are suitable for achieving that end?

Everything I can think of could be slandered as socialism.

Starting with a humorous aside:

stweart lee, loch ness

==

Well I’m no lawyer, but I think…  wink

There are a lot of laws that put boundaries on slippery ideas. The question of when a company becomes more like a utility seems vaguely to be in the same sort of conceptual space as the question of when a company becomes a monopoly. In other words, I wouldn’t know how to set the boundaries, but it seems quite plausible that boundaries could be set that are in keeping with existing. relevant law.

As for the “socialism slander” - I don’t think such arguments should be allowed to influence the conversation.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15054
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:28
 
icehorse - 09 August 2018 01:57 PM
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 12:47 PM

For anybody who thinks that YouTube should be made to host Jones (or other content), what mechanisms would you propose are suitable for achieving that end?

Everything I can think of could be slandered as socialism.

Starting with a humorous aside:

stweart lee, loch ness

==

Well I’m no lawyer, but I think…  wink

There are a lot of laws that put boundaries on slippery ideas. The question of when a company becomes more like a utility seems vaguely to be in the same sort of conceptual space as the question of when a company becomes a monopoly. In other words, I wouldn’t know how to set the boundaries, but it seems quite plausible that boundaries could be set that are in keeping with existing. relevant law.

As for the “socialism slander” - I don’t think such arguments should be allowed to influence the conversation.

Do you support allowing Brother Mario out of his jar?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6586
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:04
 
burt - 09 August 2018 02:28 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2018 01:57 PM
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 12:47 PM

For anybody who thinks that YouTube should be made to host Jones (or other content), what mechanisms would you propose are suitable for achieving that end?

Everything I can think of could be slandered as socialism.

Starting with a humorous aside:

stweart lee, loch ness

==

Well I’m no lawyer, but I think…  wink

There are a lot of laws that put boundaries on slippery ideas. The question of when a company becomes more like a utility seems vaguely to be in the same sort of conceptual space as the question of when a company becomes a monopoly. In other words, I wouldn’t know how to set the boundaries, but it seems quite plausible that boundaries could be set that are in keeping with existing. relevant law.

As for the “socialism slander” - I don’t think such arguments should be allowed to influence the conversation.

Do you support allowing Brother Mario out of his jar?

Ha! Great question!

Again, I don’t think that these are easy answers, but I would say that more specialized forums with relatively tiny audiences would fall more into the “private party” end of the spectrum. So in this case I think the mods are within their rights to impose the jar.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  377
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:09
 

So we need some laws or regulations that specify how/when you cross between being treated as private, to being treated as a public entity.

I unaware of this even being an idea in the law.  Despite the fact that few if any of are lawyers, as citizens we’re going to have to sort this stuff out.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15054
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:15
 
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 03:09 PM

So we need some laws or regulations that specify how/when you cross between being treated as private, to being treated as a public entity.

I unaware of this even being an idea in the law.  Despite the fact that few if any of are lawyers, as citizens we’re going to have to sort this stuff out.

It seems that the real issue is how to deal with fake news, and I don’t mean MSM but rather the torrent of false statements posted on social media and spread through such folk as Jones. Some stuff can be disregarded as typical political speech, where the only limits are things like good taste (suitably interpreted). But other fake news has the potential to create public damage, as for example, in the anti-vaxx propaganda that is directly linked to things like measles outbreaks, yet falls under free speech, even in countries like Canada that have hate speech laws.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6586
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:22
 
burt - 09 August 2018 03:15 PM
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 03:09 PM

So we need some laws or regulations that specify how/when you cross between being treated as private, to being treated as a public entity.

I unaware of this even being an idea in the law.  Despite the fact that few if any of are lawyers, as citizens we’re going to have to sort this stuff out.

It seems that the real issue is how to deal with fake news, and I don’t mean MSM but rather the torrent of false statements posted on social media and spread through such folk as Jones. Some stuff can be disregarded as typical political speech, where the only limits are things like good taste (suitably interpreted). But other fake news has the potential to create public damage, as for example, in the anti-vaxx propaganda that is directly linked to things like measles outbreaks, yet falls under free speech, even in countries like Canada that have hate speech laws.

again, very slippery. I agree that some “fake news” can do real damage. That said, Oligarchs could decide that criticizing oligarchs should be outlawed. Censorship is an extremely dangerous idea, especially in times like these. I fall back on the idea that sunlight is the only way to go.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15054
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 17:20
 
icehorse - 09 August 2018 03:22 PM
burt - 09 August 2018 03:15 PM
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 03:09 PM

So we need some laws or regulations that specify how/when you cross between being treated as private, to being treated as a public entity.

I unaware of this even being an idea in the law.  Despite the fact that few if any of are lawyers, as citizens we’re going to have to sort this stuff out.

It seems that the real issue is how to deal with fake news, and I don’t mean MSM but rather the torrent of false statements posted on social media and spread through such folk as Jones. Some stuff can be disregarded as typical political speech, where the only limits are things like good taste (suitably interpreted). But other fake news has the potential to create public damage, as for example, in the anti-vaxx propaganda that is directly linked to things like measles outbreaks, yet falls under free speech, even in countries like Canada that have hate speech laws.

again, very slippery. I agree that some “fake news” can do real damage. That said, Oligarchs could decide that criticizing oligarchs should be outlawed. Censorship is an extremely dangerous idea, especially in times like these. I fall back on the idea that sunlight is the only way to go.

Sunlight works well for vampires, but there are those types who get serious burns because they don’t understand the need for sunscreen. (Said he who spent a couple of summers as a lifeguard on California beaches.) Or, to be more literal, we’re agreed there so long as one can trust that the audience is well educated.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6586
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2018 18:12
 
burt - 09 August 2018 05:20 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2018 03:22 PM
burt - 09 August 2018 03:15 PM
mapadofu - 09 August 2018 03:09 PM

So we need some laws or regulations that specify how/when you cross between being treated as private, to being treated as a public entity.

I unaware of this even being an idea in the law.  Despite the fact that few if any of are lawyers, as citizens we’re going to have to sort this stuff out.

It seems that the real issue is how to deal with fake news, and I don’t mean MSM but rather the torrent of false statements posted on social media and spread through such folk as Jones. Some stuff can be disregarded as typical political speech, where the only limits are things like good taste (suitably interpreted). But other fake news has the potential to create public damage, as for example, in the anti-vaxx propaganda that is directly linked to things like measles outbreaks, yet falls under free speech, even in countries like Canada that have hate speech laws.

again, very slippery. I agree that some “fake news” can do real damage. That said, Oligarchs could decide that criticizing oligarchs should be outlawed. Censorship is an extremely dangerous idea, especially in times like these. I fall back on the idea that sunlight is the only way to go.

Sunlight works well for vampires, but there are those types who get serious burns because they don’t understand the need for sunscreen. (Said he who spent a couple of summers as a lifeguard on California beaches.) Or, to be more literal, we’re agreed there so long as one can trust that the audience is well educated.

Bingo! Without a discriminating audience we’re really in trouble.

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›