Alex Jones banned

[ZenOps]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ars-alex-jones

Better known conspiracies "9/11 was an inside job" "US Government uses weather weapon HAARP" "Sandy Hook was a fabrication"

I dunno. There is definitely reasonable doubt there. Sort of like a moon landing 49 years ago. Oppositely, if you do believe that man landed on the moon, then you have at least a probability in your mind that man has created an electronic device that can direct weather patterns in the year 2018. I mean seriously, man has created GPS - a microwatt system that can track every human on the planet down to an accuracy of 10 meters.

Jeebus may have been the savior 2000 years ago, but did he also smoke weed, and even more scary to America, was Jeebus black (lets just say that from where he was born, he was probably middle eastern curry eating)? Firsthand accounts are getting very dated.

Could the USA be blowing up buildings on its own soil? All one has to do is look at US civil war history for that answer. Heck, Canada burned the white house to the ground.

"Did Black Jeebus eat Curry at every meal?" - A question worth answering.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ExtraSlow]

Private companies already heavily censor what we see. Thats pretty much built into twitter/Facebook etc.

It seems they were previously doing it to maximize profits, and now they have layered on some kind of social goals as well.

To me that's not more scary.

Wonder if China has it right with its "citizen virtue index" system.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't say I am going to miss Alex Jones, but this opens up the wider topic of freedom of speech.

Are companies going to be the ones who decide who gets censored and who doesn't now?

Better be careful Zenny, all this talk of fake moon landings might get you banned from the internetz!

That's always been the case since the first days of internet discussion. Only reason we were so successful in the hey day was because we spent tons of money on legal fees to allow users to say whatever they want as long as it's not breaking any laws. Nobody is stupid enough to do that because frankly, nobody cares anymore.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Private companies already heavily censor what we see. Thats pretty much built into twitter/Facebook etc.

It seems they were previously doing it to maximize profits, and now they have layered on some kind of social goals as well.

To me that's not more scary.

Typo on the bolded part? Companies not even bothering to have the pretense of pretending to be neutral to me IS a scary thing. I am certainly glad they are being open about it (much easier to drop their product, as the NFL has experienced), but pretty crazy IMO.

This truly is nothing new, I brought this up about the google bikini search and all ya'll fatty lovers were thrilled about it

[ExtraSlow]

No typo. Them admitting that they have the means and motive to censor is better than them pretending to be impartial.

If course, I'd prefer that companies were totally impartial and benevolent. Doesn't seem to be realistic though.

[revelations]

He has such a large following that this will just make things more over to another platform.

[Gestalt]

Pen is mightier then the sword. You are free to say anything you want as long as its true.

Besides that freedom of speech in the US only has to do with freeedom to criticize government thats what their constitution was about. It was never about hate or doing harm to people or groups of people.

I

- - - Updated - - -

Ps did anyone catch his legal defense in court last week? In court jones team actually argued no reasonable persons would believe what he says.

[ZenOps]

I am very thankful for the pseudo anonymity and large scale of the internet. Yes, in the old days - as soon as you said anything you would have to hire 12 lawyers to keep yourself safe.

Nowadays you can band together with the other 5% conspiracy nuts and be sheltered in the safe space of "you can't sue/ban us all".

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't say I am going to miss Alex Jones, but this opens up the wider topic of freedom of speech.

Are companies going to be the ones who decide who gets censored and who doesn't now?

They always did.

Was there some golden age of free and open broadcasting where you could give a tape to a major media outlet and say "you have to show this otherwise you're violating my free speech!" and they'd comply? No. Nor did they have to print your letter to the editor just because you mailed it in. Nor did they have to give you a news column just because you wrote one. They've always controlled what they put out there. There have been media empires built specifically to get a certain perspective out there (Conrad Black starting the conservative National Post to help shift perspective away from the liberal Globe and Mail).

Freedom of speech protects you from being prosecuted by the government. It doesn't give you the right to have unfettered aspect to somebody else's soapbox.

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am very thankful for the pseudo anonymity and large scale of the internet. Yes, in the old days - as soon as you said anything you would have to hire 12 lawyers to keep yourself safe.

Nowadays you can band together with the other 5% conspiracy nuts and be sheltered in the safe space of "you can't sue/ban us all".

thats false. in the aerly days it was the wild lawless west. you coudl say antyhing, download anything, you could buy apples domain name and theyd have to buy if from you.

religion is the only thing keeping free specch going as a concept. becasue if you had to be able to back up your claims, they would be the first to go. this is a giant vatican consipracy and they have poured billions into the free speech movement but now even they are hurting from the loons and qucks like jones, oil industry liars, cliamte deniers, tesla haterss only people that back "free speach" as in say anything, hate anything, lie as much as you want are the ones that do it. it about accountability.

[ZenOps]

It does come down a little bit to personal experience too. If Trump says "fake news" to the most established news outlets on the planet, its not like you can put him in jail for it.

Vetting your own reality is probably the best way to do anything. First hand experience means flat earth can be more beneficial if circumstance dictates. Lobster being the most expensive meat can be beneficial if you run a restaurant. Circumstance is a big part of what makes up belief systems.

[max_boost]

Has ZenOps ever been banned?

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In court jones team actually argued no reasonable persons would believe what he says.

Which would no doubt leave everyone here to believe you hang off his every word.

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It does come down a little bit to personal experience too. If Trump says "fake news" to the most established news outlets on the planet, its not like you can put him in jail for it.

Vetting your own reality is probably the best way to do anything. First hand experience means flat earth can be more beneficial if circumstance dictates. Lobster being the most expensive meat can be beneficial if you run a restaurant. Circumstance is a big part of what makes up belief systems.

Hes right. It is fake news though. Nesws doesnt investigate they pre suppose the narrative. For example. They dont investigate if a story is true. They frame it like it was already true.

Instead of investigation if so and so did this, or nk did this etc. They assume its done and the story becomes 'what should we do about what so and so did.'

Its mainly fake especially the anti trump stuff.

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Freedom of speech protects you from being prosecuted by the government. It doesn't give you the right to have unfettered aspect to somebody else's soapbox.

Aaron Sorkin has had a long documented history of disdain for the Internet:

“One of the things I find troubling about the Internet, as great a resource tool as it is, and as nice as it is that we can all communicate with each other, and that everybody has a voice—the thing is, everybody’s voice oughtn’t be equal.” —Aaron Sorkin, Chicago Tribune, January 19, 2007

Dan Rather has also opined that there are 3 types of journalism: reporting, analysis and editorial. The problem with sites like InfoWars and the majority of Fox News is that most of their content is editorial disguised as reporting, and thus doesn't bear the same level of scrutiny for accuracy and fairness. Tucker Carlson has even said as much that he is not a reporter, but a TV personality; and, as Gestalt said, Alex Jones has admitted in his defense that no reasonable person would believe anything he says.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

. The problem with sites like InfoWars and the majority of Fox News is that most of their content is editorial disguised as reporting, .

Holy fucking lol. What world do you live in?

While I don't disagree, you can not possibly claim that CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CBC etc are ANY better.

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy fucking lol. What world do you live in?

While I don't disagree, you can not possibly claim that CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CBC etc are ANY better.

Their worse becauae fox doesn't pretend to be legit.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy fucking lol. What world do you live in?

While I don't disagree, you can not possibly claim that CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CBC etc are ANY better.

What world do you live in where Infowars is even REMOTELY close to Fox/CNN/CBC/etc? Sure all of the MSM have biases, but Infowars is just blatant craziness. It's not even in the same category. Hell i would even put Breitbart or The Rebel closer to MSM than something as fringe as infowars.


Generally speaking, i'd say most MSM news is 99% legit and accurate but a lot of people get their commentary shows confused with the actual news reporting. Things like Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow or opinion columns are NOT the news - they're commentary and expected to be biased.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's always been the case since the first days of internet discussion. Only reason we were so successful in the hey day was because we spent tons of money on legal fees to allow users to say whatever they want as long as it's not breaking any laws. Nobody is stupid enough to do that because frankly, nobody cares anymore.

A little off topic, but have you received any more take down notices or the like in the past while? It's been awfully quiet on the western front, we are due for something again...