So who benefits from banning Alex Jones?

[russellprose]

I completely understand that Alex Jones could be considered as the proverbial loose cannon, but doesn't banning him just fall in line with the rhetoric that he's been pushing for nearly 20 years? Jones might even be crazy, but since when has society been allowed to silence those of us that might be subjectively classified "crazy"? Is this the beginning of the slippery slope insofar as freedom of expression on the internet? https://jimdroberts.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/alex-jones-within-the-sound-of-silence/

 

[DesertRose]

Glad you started a new thread. This issue is bigger than AJ ,

Why Does Facebook Use NATO To Help Censor Users?

Facebook is using a NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is also funded by the US government and foreign governments, to help it determine which posts are authentic and which are fake. The Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased judge, however. It is extremely hawkish and has even encouraged US military strikes against Russian assets! Why is a US government funded entity involved in limiting speech? More in today's Liberty Report:

“Duhhh, Stop Defending Alex Jones! This Will Never Hurt The Left, Derp Duh!”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50049.htm

 

[Helioform]

Glad you started a new thread. This issue is bigger than AJ ,

Why Does Facebook Use NATO To Help Censor Users?

Facebook is using a NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is also funded by the US government and foreign governments, to help it determine which posts are authentic and which are fake. The Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased judge, however. It is extremely hawkish and has even encouraged US military strikes against Russian assets! Why is a US government funded entity involved in limiting speech? More in today's Liberty Report:

“Duhhh, Stop Defending Alex Jones! This Will Never Hurt The Left, Derp Duh!”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50049.htm

I have checked the TeleSur page mentionned in this article and it is still there: https://www.facebook.com/teleSUREnglish/

That article seems very biased to me with flawed research also.

It's not about Jones being "crazy" it's about him inciting violence against the media and the government, something that isn't defensible and he keeps doing it over and over.

 

[DesertRose]

I have checked the TeleSur page mentionned in this article and it is still there: https://www.facebook.com/teleSUREnglish/

PS I am no supporter of AJ . His banning may have opened the door to more and more censorship.
By the way., Telesur was also reported upon by RT

Perhaps their page was reinstated today. Telesur has said this has happened before. Their pages have been shut down before and they are critical of the American establishments, and war lobby.

 

[The Zone]

PS I am no supporter of AJ . His banning may have opened the door to more and more censorship.
By the way., Telesur was also reported upon by RT

Perhaps their page was reinstated today. Telesur has said this has happened before. There pages have been shut down before and they are critical of the American establishments, and war lobby.

Thank you. We have been trying to get this across to a certain person for weeks, Rose. Free speech is in danger. This is about funneling every single one of us into groupthink. And some seem willing to rush down the tunnel and defend their right to do so.

 

[Corvus Metus]

The companies that ban him, for one. They don't have to worry about some of the more absurd things he says scaring away advertisers.

Alex Jones himself, possibly. . With other places being shut down, it will drive the traffic to his website up and he can sell his useless pills.

 

[Corvus Metus]

Thank you. We have been trying to get this across to a certain person for weeks, Rose. Free speech is in danger. This is about funneling every single one of us into groupthink. And some seem willing to rush down the tunnel and defend their right to do so.

Did you know. If you speak about capitalism on YouTube, too loudly, your video will be demonetized? Left-wiing YouTubers, especially those with anarchists or Marxist leanings, don't even both with ads on their videos because YouTube will just tell them the topic is inappropriate.

EDIT: What I'm saying is YouTube doesn't really are about what you think. It doesn't care if you're Christian or atheist, believe the system is fine or the system is broken.. YouTube just cares if you consume. Because consuming content and watching those ads is why YouTube let's people host without paying in the first place.

 

[The Zone]

If they care about ad revenue then why would they remove it from a cash cow like Jones? I get what you are saying, but I in no way think any voices should be squelched left, right, centrist as long as it is not majorly threatening and seen as such by the majority of objective people. I can choose to sponge or read things on my own and weigh out whether it fits for me. I feel others can do the same. But this move was to protect legacy media who want a specific message to be absorbed by the public. They're scrambling for they've lost credibility with many people who are starting to wake.

One more thing you are not seeing, IMHO. YT has been given major concessions from taxes and the government. They can make money doing what certain lobbyists push. If all of MSM is pressuring them they will adhere to their whims. So, it is not actually YT which is targeting free speech here, but the suffering in the ratings MSM.

 

[Helioform]

PS I am no supporter of AJ . His banning may have opened the door to more and more censorship.
By the way., Telesur was also reported upon by RT

Perhaps their page was reinstated today. Telesur has said this has happened before. There pages have been shut down before and they are critical of the American establishments, and war lobby.

Apparently they have been reinstated wednesday they say. I find it odd that Zuckerberg would make a speech about giving the right to Holocaust Deniers (being Jewish himself) to have pages on FB but would shut down pages like these. All I know is that their ban algorithm may be screwy so it removes pages that seem to violate their TOS. Often a human worker has to look at the data and correct it if needed.

 

[DesertRose]

All I know is that their ban algorithm may be screwy so it removes pages that seem to violate their TOS. Often a human worker has to look at the data and correct it if needed.

Let us hope that these are glitches human or not and not censorship. Time will tell.
Are you also aware of Peter Van Buren being suspended from Twitter?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49990.htm
Twitter Suspends Peter Van Buren Forever

Excerpt:
Hate what I write, hate me, block me, don’t buy my books, but please don’t celebrate handing over those choices to some company.

I lost my career at the State Department because I spoke out as a whistleblower against the Iraq War. I’ve now been silenced, again, for speaking, this time by a corporation. I am living in the America I always feared.

 

[Corvus Metus]

Was he a cash cow for YouTube? He had a lot of views but that didn't mean he had a lot of advertisers. And that's dead bandwidth. And if the people people watching Alex Jones videos are only watching similar videos it means that those videos aren't also fit for advertisers... Which means Alex Jones isn't a cash cow.

But again, that's not really the point. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't some degree of orchestration from all parties involved; especially when YouTube is filled with white nationalists spewing their garbage and nothing happens to them... And Alex Jones' accomplice, Paul Joseph Watson, still has a YouTube channel with over a million subs.

To me, if feels like a smoke screen. Get people talking about how awful silencing of a guy that no one took seriously in the first place is. It reeks of a PR stunt.

 

[Aero]

When you log in to Youtube or any of these sites. You agree to terms of service. This is called a legal contract. And within those terms of service, they make very clear that your freedom of speech doesn't supersede their freedoms. They have all the power to ban you whenever they feel like it. For virtually any reason.

So with that said I just don't get the arguments defending Jones. Or anyone who signed a legal contract and got burned. DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT. It's very simple. There are no rights in the constitution that says every person may use the internet freely!

 

[Helioform]

Are you also aware of Peter Van Buren being suspended from Twitter?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49990.htm
Twitter Suspends Peter Van Buren Forever

Excerpt:
Hate what I write, hate me, block me, don’t buy my books, but please don’t celebrate handing over those choices to some company.

I lost my career at the State Department because I spoke out as a whistleblower against the Iraq War. I’ve now been silenced, again, for speaking, this time by a corporation. I am living in the America I always feared.

Nope. But I have witnessed someone being temporarily banned from Twitter for calling a Trump supporter a "f*cking moron" so who knows what they use as a standard for banning people...again these companies have to police millions of tweets a day and billions of FB pages so you can never be sure if they do their work correctly due to the massive amount of data being analysed there.

 

[Helioform]

When you log in to Youtube or any of these sites. You agree to terms of service. This is called a legal contract. And within those terms of service, they make very clear that your freedom of speech doesn't supersede their freedoms. They have all the power to ban you whenever they feel like it. For virtually any reason.

So with that said I just don't get the arguments defending Jones. Or anyone who signed a legal contract and got burned. DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT. It's very simple. There are no rights in the constitution that says every person may use the internet freely!

Seemed pretty easy to me to understand as well...People should look into website self-publishing using private servers so they avoid these giant monopolies.

 

[DesertRose]

Very worrisome when these platforms use a government funded think tank to determine what is fake or not.

"Facebook is using a NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is also funded by the US government and foreign governments, to help it determine which posts are authentic and which are fake. The Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased."
(from article I posted in the first post.)

 

[The Zone]

Why are you always making excuses for the tech companies which are clearly making war on free speech and message control, Hellio?

Yes, Rose, they have gotten government help as well as funding from other tech giants. But we are not talking just the US government who is helping. China has also been complicit and that country is a current testing ground for a total no privacy state.

Was he a cash cow for YouTube? He had a lot of views but that didn't mean he had a lot of advertisers. And that's dead bandwidth. And if the people people watching Alex Jones videos are only watching similar videos it means that those videos aren't also fit for advertisers... Which means Alex Jones isn't a cash cow.

But again, that's not really the point. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't some degree of orchestration from all parties involved; especially when YouTube is filled with white nationalists spewing their garbage and nothing happens to them... And Alex Jones' accomplice, Paul Joseph Watson, still has a YouTube channel with over a million subs.

To me, if feels like a smoke screen. Get people talking about how awful silencing of a guy that no one took seriously in the first place is. It reeks of a PR stunt.

Yes, he was a cash cow and had a lot of advertisers which were placed by YouTube for years. It is funny how whichever political slant a person has, they point to the other side. For instance, Antifa apologists throw up white nationalist and vice versa. Or is it, you see I am not aware of the white nationalist message in that I do not watch the vids via freedom of what I do and do not want to watch.

Nobody forces you to watch anything you do not want to and people on the right side of the political spectrum are not white supremacists, save some fringe groups. The same type of fringe groups the left have in a similar fashion.

Heck a gay guy on a Netflix show star asked for the left and right to get along and he was bombarded for doing so in a most negative way. Those people have the right to do so just as he did to call for calmer waters. Okay, this is another thread,

Advertisers only chose to leave Jones and left sites after brigading and pressure. This is also a product of the PC movement where the left is making the rules up as they go in an effort to knock down anything resembling tradition. Socialism is a plantation dream.

A PR stunt? What a spin. A PR stunt by whom, please elaborate. What purpose would it serve? He and others are banned because and an election is coming up and that he was pissing off MSM by taking eyeballs from them. If someone like Jones can take people away from watching MSM, then what does that say about how paltry and fake their messages might be? And then there is the possible government control and an embattled government where a silent civil war is playing out. Again, why in the world would the failing MSM want to be a part of s stunt?

 

[Helioform]

Very worrisome when these platforms use a government funded think tank to determine what is fake or not.

"Facebook is using a NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is also funded by the US government and foreign governments, to help it determine which posts are authentic and which are fake. The Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased."
(from article I posted in the first post.)

Simply put, the internet is built on the military network backbone so NATO policing this makes sense. Not that I approve this but it is simply the history of what the internet is, not a place for free speech.

 

[Helioform]

Why are you always making excuses for the tech companies which are clearly making war on free speech and message control, Hellio?

I am not making excuses I am merely saying that is what the internet was supposed to be a long time ago...it was an experiment in mass mind control.

 

[Aero]

Seemed pretty easy to me to understand as well...People should look into website self-publishing using private servers so they avoid these giant monopolies.

Exactly. If you own your own server and host a website yourself. You don't have to agree to any third party contracts.

Anyone with a popular website should know this, and seek out self-hosting as an end-game solution. Like why would anyone think it's smart to put all of their nuts in someone else's basket? It's not smart at all. We use these third-party services out of convenience. Not because they are a right, or because it's our only choice.

I see this whole thing as an extension of postmodernist delusions. You know what I'm talking about, you brought it up before. Where subjective experience somehow discredits universal facts.

 

[Corvus Metus]

Seemed pretty easy to me to understand as well...People should look into website self-publishing using private servers so they avoid these giant monopolies.

The only issue with this is increased traffic, if you start developing a following will require more money than I imagine most content creators have access to... They could supplement this through direct donations or through something like Pateron but then they have to worry about things DDoS attacks, which are a lot harder to deal with.