DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones

Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones
Crackdown on US conspiracy theorist for promoting violence and hate speech

Alex Hern

@alexhern
Mon 6 Aug 2018 06.47 EDT First published on Mon 6 Aug 2018 04.32 EDT
Shares
8,515
Alex Jones
After sanctioning Alex Jones, Apple said it ‘does not tolerate hate speech’. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters
Facebook has banned four pages run by the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for “repeated violations of community standards”, the company said on Monday.

The removal of the pages – the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page – comes after Facebook imposed a 30-day ban on Jones personally “for his role in posting violating content to these pages”.

Following that suspension, a Facebook spokesperson said: “More content from the same pages has been reported to us – upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanising language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”


Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you
Read more
The spokesperson noted that, despite the focus on Jones’s role in spreading conspiracy theories around events such as the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook school shooting, “none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this”.

Facebook’s enforcement action against Jones came just hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook’s announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.

Jones, who is being sued by the parents of children murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting for claiming the attack was a hoax, is the host of the daily Alex Jones Show podcast and his platform Infowars produces another five podcasts.

All of those shows were removed from Apple Podcasts save for one, Real News with David Knight, which at present is still on the platform.

Apple does not host podcasts, nor does it have any financial relationship with those it catalogues on its directory. Instead, Apple Podcasts is simply a list of links to podcasts hosted on independent servers around the world. But the service is still the most important single platform in the podcasting industry, driving a substantial amount of traffic to the podcasts it features on its homepage or in its charts.

Publishing platforms have faced strong pressure to take action against Jones and Infowars over the past few months, but Apple was the first major company to sanction the broadcaster in its entirety, narrowly beating Facebook to the punch. Other platforms, including YouTube, have taken down specific pieces of content produced by Jones or Infowars that breached terms of service, but have allowed the publisher to stay active on their sites.

“Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” an Apple spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, which first reported the removal. “Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming. We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions.”

Spotify also took action against Jones on Monday, removing every episode of his podcast The Alex Jones Show from its platform. The music streaming service had previously removed specific episodes of the show, but left the bulk of the archive up, before tightening its enforcement. Spotify has still left three other Infowars podcasts live on the service, however.

“We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community,” a Spotify spokesperson told the Guardian. “Due to repeated violations of Spotify’s prohibited content policies, The Alex Jones Show has lost access to the Spotify platform.”

Facebook suspended Jones’s personal profile from the site for 30 days in late July for what the company said was bullying and hate speech. But he continued to regularly appear on Facebook after the suspension, appearing in livestreams hosted by other accounts and even making first-person posts to his personal page by publishing them using the accounts of other administrators in Infowars.

Since founding Infowars in 1999, Jones has built a vast audience. Among the theories he has promoted is that the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington were staged by the government.

He has also promoted a theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked by left-wing forces to promote gun control. The shooting killed 26 children and adults at the elementary school in Connecticut.

Jones is being sued in Texas by two Sandy Hook parents, who are seeking at least $1m (£770,000), claiming they have been subjected to harassment driven by his shows.

Neither Jones nor a representative for Infowars was available for comment early on Monday.

Yo what do you think about this?

My first thought was tech companies trying to limit speech. But then I instantly thought about pizzagate, and wondered.....

I’m torn, honestly.

Alex Jones is Pro-Trump I believe.

So he has built a vast audience they say.

All I need to know.

"Hate speech" has turned into a catch all to corral any type of "wrong think". Alex Jones is a colossal jackass but this is definitely stiffing his free speech, which I am 100% against. I cannot condone these acts whatsoever.

You wouldn't hear me calling for equally as fake news Vox, slate and Huffington post to be banned. I wouldn't even call for the banning of overt left wing hate, like we've seen recently with members of the New York Times editorial board who tweeted:



Hilarious that these quotes are taken from an article in the NYP titled:



It'shard to not get annoyed with the double standard. If it's anti white, left wing rhetoric, "relax guys it was just satire" when it's right wing rhetoric it's hate speech.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/05/weve-got-to-stop-letting-outrage-mobs-get-people-fired/



Ban people or don't, stop waffling when it suits your team.

Private entities do not have to guarantee your constitutional rights.

You need to ease up on your hate. I don't particularly care for Vox or Slate, but saying they're equally as fake as a guy who constantly says that Sandy Hook didn't happen is very deceitful and shameful.

When the radio program. “War of the Worlds” was first aired it caused wide spread panic a some deaths. Actions were taken by broadcasters to prevent it from happening again. Jones infowars being banned from social media outlets is not out of line, And not a fringe on his 1st amendment rights. After all if we did what he does here we’d be banned here.

I don't like limiting free speech, but this guy is the exception.

He's VILE, HATEFUL and just a flat out LIAR.

Sandy Hook for one thing.. That hurt those familes...

Alex Jones is a lunatic.. a ranting and raving idiot.

I do not believe that private companies such as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are under any obligation to give people like that a platform.. as long as they are fair and equitable in the criteria they use to ban people.. I don't have a problem with it.. The problem is that this will give him and his thoughtless followers an even bigger platform from which they can play the victim, since so much of his stuff is government conspiracy related.. this will play right into their hands that he is being banned because what he is saying is true.

Just as 30 years ago, if I wrote an unsolicited op-ed and sent it to the NYT, they were under no obligation to publish it, neither are these companies under any obligation to allow him to spread his content.

You can't make exceptions to a rule that is applied universally, otherwise you may as well just erase the rule.

This will just make him more of a star to his fans. Youtube and media outlets will have to ban him to even begin to hurt him or keep him from doing what he does.

I could care less about his rants but the idiots who hang on his every word are the ones who concern me.

He'll probably get a fox news gig out of this.

I do not agree at all on the utility of social media. The NYT and Facebook are not one in the same. Literally everyone can access facebook if they have the means and start a news channel. A more apt comparison would be saying "A megaphone has no obligation to relay my voice".

My guess is that he has grown enough in popularity that he will do what Glenn Beck did and go start his own gig.. the problem is, I guess, Glenn Beck still relies on social media to get his message out a lot...

Other funny thing is, Beck seems to have calmed down a lot since he went out on his own.

He owns info wars from what I understand so he is, on his own, already.

You have a point. The golden rule has been erased from society.

That's fair.. but we are in a brave new world exploding in directions we could have never seen coming.. so there really is no appropriate historical comparison for social media.. so I tried.

But none of that answers the question, who should regulate it and how...

I think those who signed a user agreement are subject to the conditions outlined in the contract. Violate the terms, risk losing your privilege to use the service.

So we have private companies determining what can and cannot be expressed under their auspices. 1A issues?

Rather like pre-game kneeling on Sunday afternoons. Those in charge get to set the conditions. So nowadays it sucks to be Colin Kaepernick AND Alex Jones... for similar reasons.

.02

He owns Infowars, but makes most of his money through selling vitamins to his listeners. I also think his shows are posted on LiveLeak as well as youtube. But I assume every big tech company will start to reign in hate speech. No investor wants to see their names in court cases, even when they're not the defendant. Bad PR is horrible for a business built on speculation. Alex Jones is an interesting person. In his very public and messy divorce or child custody case - I forget which one - he said that he was just playing a character on his show. Very weird dude.

Which, in my opinion, is a huge problem in this country.. blurring the lines between entertainment and information...

Facebook is dumping Alex Jones to save their own skin. They are losing users at a rapid clip and the only people who are staying anymore are the boomers who believe in QAnon and trade racist minion memes. I don't think this will bring younger people back to Facebook but they probably feel that they have to try and appear to be more inclusive.

And to anyone who wants to scream "my freeze peaches" at facebook, where does the first amendment say private companies can't infringe on speech?

where are we drawing the line and who is the arbitrator of this? There's a long lasting idea that Ann Coulter and other media personalities are just embellishing a message for their base. I would not be surprised if that were the case on both sides.

The only megaphone that has an obligation to relay your voice, is your megaphone. Nobody is forced to let you use their megaphone to relay your voice.

I think you're absolutely correct here. These social media platforms are not government owned entities. The first amendment specifically talks about the government banning free speech, and that's not the case here. And you're correct, this is no different than this site having the right to ban posters who drop false news about free agency or whatnot. You're just talking about a much larger audience. Those companies should be well in their rights to do that. If Alex Jones lemmings don't like it, then they should move to another social media platform, or create their own.

The double standards of those companies picking and choosing what is fake/slanted news is another matter. If people feel they are way too one-sides one way or another, they are still free to pick a different social media service.

Right now the line is very arbitrary and the platforms themselves are really the only ones policing themselves.

As for the blurry area between entertainment and information.. again, nobody is drawing a line and people are left to their own devices to figure out who is reporting and who is entertaining.. and, let's be honest, most people would rather be entertained than informed..

Which is absolutely the Constitutional purist's view, and why I'm torn on this.

When you sign up to use a privately owned service, you must agree to their terms of service and violating that is grounds for removal.

That said, there is absolutely no denying that this is a dangerous precedent in silencing a political view.... BUT, the 1st Amendment only states that the Government may not restrict your speech. Private entities are free to require you to play by their rules on their playground... the dangerous part here is that the mediums in question are THE preeminent modes of communication in 2018. Totally legal and legit and within the grounds of any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, but still disconcerting nonetheless.

Which is exactly the problem. Rather than social media serving as an exchange of ideas as it should.. it will turn into another "news bubble" where some like Twitter might be all libs.. FB might be all cons.... and there is no actual exchange... going from one to the other will be like switching back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC.

And there will be no middle ground. You just have to pick one or the other.

Generally, I'd say, "Let the market decide", where if one medium chooses to be slanted completely one way or the other, people would eventually ditch it and go for something a little more neutral. But then, like you're saying, we've got the same thing in the regular media, and it's "pick your poison".

And, that is their Right. As companies, they can be whatever they want to be without worry about what WE want it to be. They are only beholden to their shareholders and their direction will be guided by their CEO & Board.

As consumers of their products, we can choose whether or not to use their services. Capitalistic voting.

So facebook had huge stock losses a week or so ago right after taking a stand against russian interference. I wonder if this will hit their stock too.

It's a social media platform. They have banned advertisers for way less than Alex Jones does. Any reports of deception as an advertiser and you get banned from FB and Google both. So flatout out outrageous lies should get you kicked of social media when you are harming the reputation of others.

FB advertising is kinda sucky though and not really worth it.

However, like others have said, FB is entitled to run their site however they like. If they make bad decisions, they lose business. The market is a fickle thing too.

When they were new, FB and Google ads were the best! You could get tons of traffic for pennies. I had a google campaign that made me $50 commissions for everyone who requested more info via a form for online college. I ran ads offering financial aid and grants for college (which they assisted you in applying for) for a nickel a click. For almost a year that campaign had between 5-10 conversions a day. My ad bill was about 10% OF THE COMMISSIONS! Those were happy days.

Meh, I ran ads that cost pennies also, but they dont have very good targeting. It always started out well, but ad burnout happens pretty quick.


I only use google these days. I have tremendous luck with it. But it took a while to determine the best strategies.

Oh I agree that they are next to worthless now. Most people use adblockers and never even see them. I just loved them when they were new.

And its kind of a joke when give you an option to send people to your business's fb page. I did that for a while too. My page has like 32K likes/follows.

But if I post a new status, barely any of those people will see it.

You have to build page followings completely organically. I never did that but I know they try to get you to do it. One of my clients has a small town pizza shop. I got him up to about 4K followers. He puts a coupon out on FB and it gets 1500 views minimum and averages about 2500. Now his likes just grow on their own.

My problem with facebook business pages is when people leave a negative review and say crap like "Great pizza but I wasn't feeling it" so 2 stars... Or 'I spent $25 on pizza and drinks, could have ate at pizza hut for $15' one star... I want to scream at them to take their cheap ass to Pizza Hut then. smdh

The guy's shop has a rating of 4.5 out of 5 because of idiots. The pizza is fantastic.

Theres always negative people. Just delete that ish.

I think it is easier to advertise/grow on facebook with a brick and mortar store because you can specifically target locations. With a niche internet game, I cant do that. I have really specific needs when it comes to ads.

Google is flexible enough to make it work with good conversions. Also seo.

You can't delete reviews on FB or G. I'm pretty good with SEO. I can rank a site page one for long tails usually within a week to one month. I've done some in 1 or two days.

If a keyword is super competitive it takes a ton of work. Had a customer that makes vinyl/corrugated signs, took almost a year of backlinking and writing authority articles to get him ranked top 4 on his best keywords. Got him there and he ended my deal. He stayed on page one for about two months and got knocked off. Some keywords aren't worth the effort. Clicks on those keywords cost him .75 - $3 each! Insane.

At 12:34 this afternoon, while enjoying a light lunch, DC prophesied:



At 4:22 Alex Jones tweeted: