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

Do we believe, that after all of the Russian ads and zuckerberg being in front of congress that the government isn't involved in Facebook at this point? Maybe I'm being a bit of Alex Jones here but I have to believe they are involved now. Or at a minimum Zuck is notifying them of certain types of events.

I'm sure they are involved at least with a line of communications. But I doubt that the GOP controlled congress and white house issued an order to hit Alex Jones. So yes, you are overthinking this.

The government has all the big social media on speed dial, just like all the big media outlets, banks, corps, and donors. They all work together to form our daily realities and maintain their power over us. There is nothing groundbreakingly new there...

So now you advocate special rules for businesses based on their income? That sounds pretty socialist.

Yes, very Alex Jones like.

Info War has been declared!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-hEKgyeSAg

Thats kind of hilarious lol

That was stupid and disgusting. 40 2pts OCD 0pts... smfh

I've still yet to see them define what "hate speech" is and that's pathetic. How do I know what I'm saying doesn't match their definition of hate speech?

What are your views on immigrants, people of color, liberals, conservatives, christianity, Islam, LGBTQ, and white supremacy?

They are allowed to be vague in their TOS if they want.

If you dont agree with their TOS, then get off their website.

I know companies that TOS say they can ban you for any reason at any time, at their discretion.

If they wanted, they could make their TOS say you have to wear a red hat and stand on one foot, while accessing their site.

Dont agree? Get off.

lmao I love when classical liberals finally discover economic issues.

Also Alex Jones's last video on public included him saying you should burn trans people alive. I know FB has very weak hate speech rules, but calling for murder has to breach that.

Actually it very well may end up going to court because of a precedent set by the loonies of the judicial system. Twitter can no longer be considered a private entity. WHY? because the Supreme Court set a precedent when they said Donald Trump was not allowed to block users on Twitter. You will also notice twitter refusing to ban Alex Jones.

If the Supreme court views twitter as a public forum then it's hard not to argue that facebook and such are also not a type of public forum.

It will be interesting to see what develops from this.

Donald Trump serves in an office of the Government.

Facebook does not.

Also, please provide some receipts that twitter is somehow now a Government entity and subject to laws being such an entity.

What difference does it make what his "views" are? Views are thoughts and opinions.. the only thing that matters is what comes out of his mouth... Are we going to start punishing and banning people for "hate thoughts" now?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/06/fa...st-hate-speech/

Facebook bans InfoWars and Alex Jones after calls for drag queens to be burned alive

“We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe.

Watch PinkNews

video playingReuben Kaye: Why drag makes me feel more masculine
Rueben Kaye: Drag makes me feel more...
01/08/18Rueben Kaye: Drag makes me feel more masculine
MNEK calls out Grindr on racism
06/08/18MNEK calls out Grindr on racism
John Bercow calls out anti-trans media
05/07/18John Bercow calls out anti-trans media
Moment kid sees a drag queen for the first time
20/06/18Moment kid sees a drag queen for the first time
Le Gateau Chocolat: I'm a Black, bearded, plus...
18/06/18Le Gateau Chocolat: I'm a Black, bearded, plus-sized drag queen
Video Smart Player invented by Digiteka
“It’s why we have Community Standards and remove anything that violates them, including hate speech that attacks or dehumanizes others.

“Earlier today, we removed four Pages belonging to Alex Jones for repeatedly posting content over the past several days that breaks those Community Standards.”

The four pages, the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page, have been “unpublished for repeated violations of Community Standards and accumulating too many strikes.”

Facebook explained that hate speech was the motivator, adding: “While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.”

----

Tell someone they deserve to be burned alive on here and see how quickly you're put on timeout. If you can't differentiate between hate speech then you're probably participating in hate speech.

Alex Jones wants his cake and to eat is too...

He says it is a news show. It is not. When he factually is proven wrong, he refused to retract, and says he is entertainment.

What he said about Sandy Hook is a lie, and he knows it. But you can't be a news show, and an entertainment show at the same time.

I hope the Sandy Hook people win their case. He is scum.

He asked "How do I know what I'm saying doesn't match their definition of hate speech?".

I don't care what he says, but if he wants to know he needs to examine his views and decide if those are acceptable or considered Hate Speech. Something like 'all black people have inferior intellects' is racists hate speech. Something like 'I know all blacks aren't stupid but i work with a black guy that is dumb as a box of rocks', it's not nice but not necessarily racist or hate speech.

Honestly I wasn't attacking the guy.

Someone has way too much free time on their hands. They actually made this thing.

But then again... I said the same thing when I saw 'From Russia- With Love'


Gotta admit... that was funny AF.

How can anyone be confused by the fact that asking for someone to be burned alive is considered hate speech? Are they actually trying to claim they need someone to explain that to them?

That is the whole problem with the term "Hate Speech." Technically there is no well defined definition because it doesn't exist. One person's hate speech means absolutely nothing and doesn't offend someone else at all.

If there is no definition and someone just uses the term hate speech to ban or suspend something they don't like then that is a problem. Banning because of "hate speech" seems like a blanket response, cop out, thing to do, at least in my opinion.

Since I don't really believe in censorship; I'd normally say, if you don't like something, change the channel or move on. No one is forcing you to observe under normal circumstances. That's not directed towards Alex Jones' thing exactly but in general.

I consider hate speech pretty easy to define. If you're attacking or disparaging someone on things they cannot change, that's hateful. Someone can't help that they are black. Someone can't help that they are a woman. Someone can't help that they are disabled. Hate speech is vaguely defined in the US, but it's most certainly well defined on the books of other western countries.

When the supreme court judge made a demand that donald trump unblock users twitter lost its ability to be a private speech forum because now government is controlling the management of accounts on twitter. Therefore it is not privately controlled but government controlled. Thus twitter is not a private forum but a public forum.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court isnt controlling the management of twitter. It is controlling the actions of a Government official.

Again, I ask for something factual, not written by you, and your opinion, that twitter is now a Govt entity.

It was his personal twitter account. It didn't stop being personal just because he took a government job. I actually think the judge is a loon but it doesn't stop the fact that the judge put government control over twitter. Once it does that it is no longer a private entity but a public one managed by the government.

It will most certainly create a precedent to be used in future lawsuits. The judge should have ruled that it's his account and he can manage it how he wants because it's his. Instead he made a ruling that his private account was public and that he had no right of privacy or control. It will end up expanding to all forms of public forums managed privately.

To expect something to be private you must make some attempt to make it private. He didn't. He made it public.

Now that he lost his platform, Jones popularity has spiked. So, people like him more when he's silenced. Hmm... Seems these companies did him a favor IMHO.

https://youtu.be/i9qv8RSreIM

Noooooo

One for every Lib on this board...and two for OCD!

Cool.