Alex Jones Channel 100% Removed from You Tube and Facebook

[Aero]

it would be slander if it was false accusations. malicious statements, if true, are covered by the 1st. since i am put in a position to defend jones` actions and have not heard his reasoning as to why he refused to go to court and fight it, i am forced to guess that he didnt want to be dragged though an expensive legal battle and risk his business (or even risk them going after himself if they tried to pierce the corporate veil). perhaps he figured that the plaintiff had an unlimited budget to bring him down, since big money is riding on the official story. in any case, he backed down and i was disgusted and disappointed. jones` action here adds to the speculation that jones is a shill or cointelpro.

Well, the families suing Jones are saying the statements he made are false and malicious. And they are going so far as to prove it in civil court. That's a pretty big step and risk for a so-called conspiracy with shitty crisis actors.

Btw I'm pretty sure I explained Jones reasoning to you. There's only one logical thing we can deduce from this. And it is that Jones doesn't have any research or real argument to back up his claim. If he did it would be a huge easy win. So this appeal to wealth you keep making is not impressive. It's a logical fallacy!

My argument here is a key part of my overall opinion of Jones and him getting banned. If we allow anyone to grab a microphone and ruin other peoples lives then that is *completely* against the spirit of the constitution. It makes the whole thing self-defeating.

 

[The Zone]

Interesting that we get constant sidetracks in the thread which I created to speak of free speech and not Alex Jones. I guess those in other countries are A-okay without the first amendment and they sure as heck like to tell those who live in this country about its politics, etc. With such a birdseye view from the MSM from afar, I guess those who actually live here haven't got a leg to stand on Facts are negotiated through lack of actually seeing anything on the ground. Hey, it is on the internet, so it must be true. Not to offend, but someone in Canada, the UK etc has no first amendment nor the understanding of what is about to us. Most posters here learn from trusted people in other countries and not what they read. Some are looking more and more like trolls and shills or banned members past.

 

[polymoog]

Well, the families suing Jones are saying the statements he made are false and malicious. And they are going so far as to prove it in civil court. That's a pretty big step and risk for a so-called conspiracy with shitty crisis actors.

Btw I'm pretty sure I explained Jones reasoning to you. There's only one logical thing we can deduce from this. And it is that Jones doesn't have any research or real argument to back up his claim. If he did it would be a huge easy win. So this appeal to wealth you keep making is not impressive. It's a logical fallacy!

My argument here is a key part of my overall opinion of Jones and him getting banned. If we allow anyone to grab a microphone and ruin other peoples lives then that is *completely* against the spirit of the constitution. It makes the whole thing self-defeating.

the company i am with was faced with a frivolous lawsuit where the plantiff was suing for treble damages. although we were completely in the right, we were forced to settle on the advice of our attorney who said that it would cost more money trying to fight it than to settle. unfortunately, this is how the law works sometimes. further, there are instances where one could be in the right and still lose. it might not be worth the risk, and one never knows how the jury will rule.

anyway...

you are saying that your argument FOR his banishment from youtube is because he ''ruined peoples lives''. ive already stated that libel and slander suits cover false accusations. if i make a YT video about 9-11 and accuse george bush, dick cheney, or donald rumsfeld being complicit in 9-11, should i also get banned from YT on the same grounds as jones? by your assertions, i am ruining their future political careers.

 

[Futility]

Hey, it is on the internet, so it must be true.

That is how virtually every one here came to their beliefs.

 

[Helioform]

The way I see this now, is IF you view information as a meme, some kind of "living organism" that spreads around much like a virus does--then how do we stop wrong and hurtful memes from spreading much like a cancer? Some say that we could spread counter-memes to neutralize the malignant ones. This is what the intelligence agencies refer to sometimes as "meme indirection."

The only problem with that is that the counter-memes aren't necessarilly true either. Jones for example was able to spread on social media like wildfire because the algorithms favored memes that appealed to people's instincts such as conspiracy theories about "immigrants stealing american jobs" and Muslims causing terrorism. Social media continually pushed those because it made them a lot of money. It didn't have to be true, it just had to appeal to people's emotions. Especially those who feel disenfranchised by the system and left behind. The narrative that becomes the most popular is the one that fits in the masses' worldview. Jones was simply preying on his audience's ignorance and their need to have short and simple explanation for all their problems.

Also, the academic litterature on this shows that people who believe in conspiracy theories will believe in them even more when there is an attempt to refute the theory with counter-arguments and evidence. So how do you fight in this "Info War" (aptly named) that risks placing the populace in such ignorance that society eventually collapses due to expanding chaos? Imagine if Flat Earthers became very influencial and spread at the highest levels of government? There is evidence that shows a correlation between the education level of the population and its stability. And right now we are seeing probably the bottom of the barrel being reached there.

I think people should really scrap social media and only try to access their information by accessing web sites directly. We need to stop letting these algorithms control our minds by continually feeding us just what we want to watch or read.

 

[polymoog]

"the way to combat hateful speech is through MORE free speech." -judge napolitano

i think he has it right.

truth always persists even when subjugated by propaganda, and the lies die off eventually.

 

[Helioform]

"the way to combat hateful speech is through MORE free speech." -judge napolitano

i think he has it right.

truth always persists even when subjugated by propaganda, and the lies die off eventually.

Often it does, but at what price? We are living in the same phase that the Romans went through just before they collapsed. And we keep making the same mistakes because those who conquer others win in their meme indirection--by rewriting history.

 

[polymoog]

Often it does, but at what price? We are living in the same phase that the Romans went through just before they collapsed. And we keep making the same mistakes because those who conquer others win in their meme indirection--by rewriting history.

having to hear offensive things is sometimes the price we have to pay, and most are glad to pay it. the alternative is a censored society, like communist china or the USSR.
there is always the option to simply not listen to what one does not like. fight fake memes with real memes and the truth will come out on top every time.

 

[The Zone]

That is how virtually every one here came to their beliefs.

I beg to differ. Books, life experience (the biggest one), employment in certain sectors, attending seminars, protests, festivals, groups, podcasts, radio shows, meditation, seeing things via words in religion, travel, one on one discussions in everyday life all come to mind, etc, etc. Not to mention an occasional dose of objectivity and the willingness to learn and crush old beliefs while refining new ones.

So, the internet is but a small part of my personal belief structure and that should go for others as well. Discernment is an art for taking in mass information and understanding what is true or has substance. By combining many things together leads to the art of a clear picture, not what we read on the internet. If your make up of belief is basically from that, then you are only beginning to learn.

 

[The Zone]

The way I see this now, is IF you view information as a meme, some kind of "living organism" that spreads around much like a virus does--then how do we stop wrong and hurtful memes from spreading much like a cancer? Some say that we could spread counter-memes to neutralize the malignant ones. This is what the intelligence agencies refer to sometimes as "meme indirection."

The only problem with that is that the counter-memes aren't necessarilly true either. Jones for example was able to spread on social media like wildfire because the algorithms favored memes that appealed to people's instincts such as conspiracy theories about "immigrants stealing american jobs" and Muslims causing terrorism. Social media continually pushed those because it made them a lot of money. It didn't have to be true, it just had to appeal to people's emotions. Especially those who feel disenfranchised by the system and left behind. The narrative that becomes the most popular is the one that fits in the masses' worldview. Jones was simply preying on his audience's ignorance and their need to have short and simple explanation for all their problems.

Also, the academic litterature on this shows that people who believe in conspiracy theories will believe in them even more when there is an attempt to refute the theory with counter-arguments and evidence. So how do you fight in this "Info War" (aptly named) that risks placing the populace in such ignorance that society eventually collapses due to expanding chaos? Imagine if Flat Earthers became very influencial and spread at the highest levels of government? There is evidence that shows a correlation between the education level of the population and its stability. And right now we are seeing probably the bottom of the barrel being reached there.

I think people should really scrap social media and only try to access their information by accessing web sites directly. We need to stop letting these algorithms control our minds by continually feeding us just what we want to watch or read.

Algorithms control things such as advertising but does that mean I click on every ad I see? Scrap social media? So, we should not talk to like-minded individuals or learn from one another? I fully have the ability to discern information properly and even realize when people are trying to bait me for a click to their site.

As for Rome, it fell because it gave into similar things social justice wants today. That is a long story I will get back to you on.

Are you working for CNN? I ask this semi-jokingly in that you have their same talking points. You want to filter information thinking people are not capable of doing so, by squelching their social abilities You say people should access sites directly when that is, in fact, censoring their ability to share links on say twitter which begs the question, how long before you get to sites like this when in fact this is a board dedicated said theories

I think you fail to see that every bit of evidence can be met with a counter argument. But it seems you want no counter argument and see your truth as being the total gospel of things. I see a lot of holes in your logic and tunnel vision in your views.

BTW, you still seem to take Jones seriously when most here did not. And you keep spinning this away from free speech not to mention saying that less of it is better.

 

[Aero]

the company i am with was faced with a frivolous lawsuit where the plantiff was suing for treble damages. although we were completely in the right, we were forced to settle on the advice of our attorney who said that it would cost more money trying to fight it than to settle. unfortunately, this is how the law works sometimes. further, there are instances where one could be in the right and still lose. it might not be worth the risk, and one never knows how the jury will rule.

anyway...

you are saying that your argument FOR his banishment from youtube is because he ''ruined peoples lives''. ive already stated that libel and slander suits cover false accusations. if i make a YT video about 9-11 and accuse george bush, dick cheney, or donald rumsfeld being complicit in 9-11, should i also get banned from YT on the same grounds as jones? by your assertions, i am ruining their future political careers.

Sounds like some pretty bad legal advice.

And I find it interesting you only using public figures in your slander example. Like great logic polymog, lets just switch around the entire scenario to fit your argument.

We are long past hypotheticals! Alex Jones wasnt alandering some fat cat public figures. These are private citizens who have been harassed constantly. Their lives and their pursuit of liberty and property have been put in jeaporday.

If you are harassing a private citizen you certainly will be banned.

 

[Helioform]

Algorithms control things such as advertising but does that mean I click on every ad I see? Scrap social media? So, we should not talk to like-minded individuals or learn from one another? I fully have the ability to discern information properly and even realize when people are

You clearly have no clue about how social media works. These companies use machine learning algorithms to recommend what you will watch or read. So everytime you click on something, YT for example will add more of the same in your timeline. So instead of reading stuff that actually challenge your beliefs, you end up in your own comfort zone of information where everything fits your worldview. I take the FE example, I actually had to read some of their nonsense theories to realize how messed up it is. Also if you keep reading the same biased viewpoints all the time then you do not have opportunities for growth. Social media is just a place where everything is neat and nice for your mind and you do not face actual challenge to your belief systems. I gave the Jones example, and explained why his fans are cut out from reality.

Are you working for CNN? I ask this semi-jokingly in that you have their same talking points. You want to filter information thinking people are not capable of doing so, by squelching their social abilities You say people should access sites directly when that is, in fact, censoring their ability to share links on say twitter which begs the question, how long before you get to sites like this when in fact this is a board dedicated said

Semi-jokingly? Man you really are stupid. If I worked for CNN I wouldn't waste my time here trying to convince people posting on a forum.

I never said I wanted to filter anything, I said that people should read or watch other stuff than what is fed on social media. Also, there is a link between suicidal tendencies and social media addiction, which makes the thing even more reprehensible. People are addicted to likes, like it is a form of need for love and atttention.

I think you fail to see that every bit of evidence can be met with a counter argument. But it seems you want no counter argument and see your truth as being the total gospel of things. I see a lot of holes in your logic and tunnel vision in your views.

BTW, you still seem to take Jones seriously when most here did not. And you keep spinning this away from free speech not to mention saying that less of it is better.

You constantly misrepresent what I say. I said that counter-arguments are not necessarilly truthful. If this becomes a war of information then only the most viral stuff will spread even if it is false. I said that social media makes this even worse because of the algorithms that are used to spread stuff that appeals to people's emotions even more than the mainstream media. I also see a bunch of celebrities become some kind of monsters on there by saying things they would never say to someone's face. Trolling has pushed some people to the brink also, sometimes to suicide. That's another matter, but it makes the whole thing even worse.

And my beef with Jones is that he tries to make his show look like a news outlet when it is just performance acting mixed with propaganda. I have no respect for that and a LOT of people take him seriously.

 

[The Zone]

You clearly have no clue about how social media works. These companies use machine learning algorithms to recommend what you will watch or read. So everytime you click on something, YT for example will add more of the same in your timeline. So instead of reading stuff that actually challenge your beliefs, you end up in your own comfort zone of information where everything fits your worldview. I take the FE example, I actually had to read some of their nonsense theories to realize how messed up it is. Also if you keep reading the same biased viewpoints all the time then you do not have opportunities for growth. Social media is just a place where everything is neat and nice for your mind and you do not face actual challenge to your belief systems. I gave the Jones example, and explained why his fans are cut out from reality.

YouTube adds crap for you via suggestion which is their way of forcing you to see opposite takes. For instance, if you watch Fox news they will automatically send you CNN links or the next video in line if you leave that feature open will go there.. YT also gives all who check into conspiracy theories stuff they may not want to read. In fact, I have never, ever liked any of their suggested channels which means their algo's are not set up to truly gove me things which interest me and in some cases seemingly want to piss people off. But YT is not what I think of when talking about social media. In fact, one can argue they are not social media.

Social media is twitter where you can follow who you want or Facebook and Instagram which do a similar thing. That is true social media. You have a choice there of who to follow, block, etc. So how do they feed you anything that you do not willingly follow?




[/QUOTE] Semi-jokingly? Man you really are stupid. If I worked for CNN I wouldn't waste my time here trying to convince people posting on a forum. [/QUOTE]

So, you prove you cannot get a joke. But you said in the opening paragraph what they preach which is watch us and not them. There are plenty of paid trolls pushing agendas on the web. I do not really think you work for them, it just seems like it in that you have many of their talking points.


[/QUOTE] I never said I wanted to filter anything, I said that people should read or watch other stuff than what is fed on social media. Also, there is a link between suicidal tendencies and social media addiction, which makes the thing even more reprehensible. People are addicted to likes, like it is a form of need for love and atttention. [/QUOTE]

Oh, I am familiar with dopamine likes and some issues with social media. But
you seem to be bluring the lines a bit. Also, you sure want to filter Alex Jones per comments.


[/QUOTE] You constantly misrepresent what I say. I said that counter-arguments are not necessarilly truthful. If this becomes a war of information then only the most viral stuff will spread even if it is false. I said that social media makes this even worse because of the algorithms that are used to spread stuff that appeals to people's emotions even more than the mainstream media. I also see a bunch of celebrities become some kind of monsters on there by saying things they would never say to someone's face. Trolling has pushed some people to the brink also, sometimes to suicide. That's another matter, but it makes the whole thing even worse. [/QUOTE]
I have only quoted what you actually said and met the points with counterpoints. You are wrong in that the most viral stuff will spread in some cases, for it will be squelched via bans to anything that does not fit the party line of the moment. However, I feel we agree that there is some deliberate programming going on. Still, only the truly lost pay that much attention to celebrities these days. Those who cannot think for themselves and buy into brainwashing are certainly at risk. Trolling and bullying is indeed an issue and there should be laws involved to prosecute mean-spirited attacks which lead to deaths and such. If they prosecute enough people, they can quell that in some way,

[/QUOTE] And my beef with Jones is that he tries to make his show look like a news outlet when it is just performance acting mixed with propaganda. I have no respect for that and a LOT of people take him seriously.[/QUOTE]

Jones has said some crazy stuff, but he on occasion points out some issues. The legacy media hates it becasue Jones and other alt media sites on both sides can immediately report on news and do not answer to a part line to protect the integrity of certain individuals or parties. The next step is to halt real-time reporting so they can continue to edit their videos with an inaccurate spin. When there are alt sites on hand showing the events, it is hard for the spin doctors to do their thing.

 

[polymoog]

And I find it interesting you only using public figures in your slander example. Like great logic polymog, lets just switch around the entire scenario to fit your argument.
We are long past hypotheticals! Alex Jones wasnt alandering some fat cat public figures. These are private citizens who have been harassed constantly. Their lives and their pursuit of liberty and property have been put in jeaporday.
If you are harassing a private citizen you certainly will be banned.

in the eyes of the law, everyone has the same rights: rich, famous, or poor. george bush and john q public can both sue for libel and slander for defamation of character. if one is in the public domain, the spotlight is upon the person whether one likes it or not. one is open to ridicule.
with the sandy hoax situation, the crisis actor parents are free to sue jones if they feel they have been wrongfully slandered. this should have absolutely nothing to do with youtube. youtube is not part of our justice system.

 

[Corvus Metus]

in the eyes of the law, everyone has the same rights: rich, famous, or poor.

On paper, sure. In practice, less so.

 

[polymoog]

I found out that Alex Jones's channels were being removed from a lot of different sites, so what the hell is going on?
Is this just more propaganda?

quick version: jones was pulled off of several social media sites at the same time. most claimed that he violated their TOS.

why: besides the reasons stated already in this thread (please read it in its entirety so you see both sides of the debate), i think the overarching reason is that MSM news outlets cannot compete with internet/social media news outlets. their business model is outdated and archaic, so many get their news directly from social media. jones and other news personalities send out their breaking news quicker and better packaged than MSM can come up with a story on television. MSM/propaganda outlets cannot have the masses obtaining their news from alt media (be it left or right). they are starting with jones, but will eventually pull everyone down, including the left.

 

[Aero]

in the eyes of the law, everyone has the same rights: rich, famous, or poor. george bush and john q public can both sue for libel and slander for defamation of character. if one is in the public domain, the spotlight is upon the person whether one likes it or not. one is open to ridicule.
with the sandy hoax situation, the crisis actor parents are free to sue jones if they feel they have been wrongfully slandered. this should have absolutely nothing to do with youtube. youtube is not part of our justice system.

Sure, but being in the public domain and being a public figure are two different things. The point there is public figures are talked about so much that proving slander is very difficult. And again ridicule and the actual Jones case are totally different things.

Ridicule would be saying they look like terrible actors. And the argument would end there. But Jones says they are actors because they are part of this horrible conspiracy. He said they are guilty. It is no longer a pointless appeal to ridicule. It is a character assassination. Now I'm wondering if you would like to restate any part of your argument. Because it seems like your saying all of us in the public domain should be allowed to be character assassinated by some rich fat dude with a microphone.

Also, youtube might not be part of the justice system. But they have real liabilities. And I get so annoyed when people act like corporations are entitled to some sort of extra protection.

 

[polymoog]

Also, youtube might not be part of the justice system. But they have real liabilities. And I get so annoyed when people act like corporations are entitled to some sort of extra protection.

if it was a liability issue for youtube, they couldve banned him years ago. this was an orchestrated attack by several major social media platforms all at the same time. this was pitchfork mob mentality that had him banned.

 

[Aero]

if it was a liability issue for youtube, they couldve banned him years ago. this was an orchestrated attack by several major social media platforms all at the same time. this was pitchfork mob mentality that had him banned.

That's a far more interesting argument. I don't think Jones has ever been sued with such vigor though. The count is actually 9 families from Sandy Hook victims. That's a lot of pressure to be throwing down on someone.

Mob mentality sure. But the mob is just trying to protect their brands. And I'm only saying that because I haven't seen enough to convince me otherwise. At this point anyway. I saw your theory that independent media is carving into mainstream market share. Let's just say I highly doubt they are. And it's not a huge market anyway.

 

[UnderAlienControl]

CNN Article Accuses Infowars of Being “Complicit in Domestic Terror” They've truly jumped the shark
https://www.newswars.com/cnn-article-accuses-infowars-of-being-complicit-in-domestic-terror/