Enemy of the People

#251
#251
Rasputin_Vol said:
I understand what you are saying on a certain level, but hear me out.

I agree that one company or entity acting unfavorably to a customer is their right. However, when a group of companies for a lack of a better term "conspire" against a customer, now you are looking at the acts of a cartel... esp. in this case where the argument can be made that these companies are the major players in social media that are acting in unison to restrict access to one person.

There is a case to be made that you need some anti-trust legislation to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...

After Alex Jones’ website was banned on Monday via a coordinated action from YouTube, Facebook and other platforms, Democrats are now calling for even more censorship. Shocking, who would’ve thought, right? Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, is looking to impose chicom style internet censorship over websites who incidentally are not agreeing with his party’s political platform. Again, very shocking indeed.

This is what the modern Democratic party has to offer to its constituency, after losing a presidential election and looking ahead for the 2018 midterms: Chinese styled censorship.

Democrats Now Claim The Surviving of “Our Democracy” Relies on Banning More Sites – Investment Watch Blog


 
#255
#255
T-TownVol said:
So, it is just like Real Time and The Daily Show?
Click to expand...

Well now, to my knowledge those shows aren't masquerading as a genuine news source. Satire, comedy and maybe something factual, but they aren't out there espousing crazy fringe conspiracy theories.

Grand Vol said:
And he doesn't have that right?
Click to expand...

Certainly, he has the right to say just about whatever he wants. However, businesses such as You Tube and FaceBook don't have to provide him a platform if they feel it might expose them to liability (or really for any reason they feel warrants revoking his privileges.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#258
#258
ClearwaterVol said:
From my perspective...

I do not like restrictions on free speech. This, however, is not a free speech issue. This is an example of a company protecting itself from lawsuits. Infowars is absolute garbage. Anyone that buys into anything said on Alex Jones' radio show is mentally deficient. However, some of the idiots that tune in believe what he says is true and act upon it. Remember the idiot who went to the Sandy Hook anniversary and harassed all the parents telling them that there kids weren't dead? It is not much of a leap to see someone hurting someone that Jones has accused of pedophilia or whatever. You Tube was aware of the lies spread by Jones. They were aware that his followers are mentally ill and now they have knowledge that they will act on AJ's shtick. It wouldn't be a shock to see a jury buying into that argument and nailing a Yahoo to the wall.
Click to expand...

I’m not an Alex Jones fan at all but this is a huge slippery slope and once we start down it , it’s going to be hard to stop . You can’t say because a fan of a show does something stupid it’s the hosts fault , every person is responsible for themselves . When we start saying a host is responsible ( if there’s no call to action ) then is when we run into censorship . Example : the guy in the van that tried to kill all of the Republican congressmen practicing baseball ... his favorite show was Rachel Maddow . She didn’t make him do that his crazy self did . But if we say it was because of her show then should she be banned ? Slippery Slope .
 
#260
#260
0nelilreb said:
I’m not an Alex Jones fan at all but this is a huge slippery slope and once we start done it , it’s going to be hard to stop . You can’t say because a fan of a show does something stupid it’s the hosts fault , every person is responsible for themselves . When we start saying a host is responsible ( if there’s no call to action ) then is when we run into censorship . Example : the guy in the van that tried to kill all of the Republican congressmen practicing baseball ... his favorite show was Rachel Maddow . She didn’t make him do that his crazy self did . But if we say it was because of her show then should she be banned ? Slippery Slope .
Click to expand...

Gay cakes was a slippery slope, This is just how it is now.
 
#263
#263
ClearwaterVol said:
Certainly, he has the right to say just about whatever he wants. However, businesses such as You Tube and FaceBook don't have to provide him a platform if they feel it might expose them to liability (or really for any reason they feel warrants revoking his privileges.)
Click to expand...

Very slippery slope..
 
#265
#265
0nelilreb said:
I’m not an Alex Jones fan at all but this is a huge slippery slope and once we start down it , it’s going to be hard to stop . You can’t say because a fan of a show does something stupid it’s the hosts fault , every person is responsible for themselves . When we start saying a host is responsible ( if there’s no call to action ) then is when we run into censorship . Example : the guy in the van that tried to kill all of the Republican congressmen practicing baseball ... his favorite show was Rachel Maddow . She didn’t make him do that his crazy self did . But if we say it was because of her show then should she be banned ? Slippery Slope .
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a slippery slope. Judge each case on the merits. I have serious reservations whether any such case could ever be maintained against Jones, the radio station or You Tube, but I understand companies not wanting to find out.

T-TownVol said:
The Dems are afraid of one voice in AJ?
Click to expand...

No, this is not a democrat/republican issue this is a green, as in money, issue. Nobody sane people really give two sh!ts about AJ, but you really don't want to be the test case on something like this. Plaintiff is likely to be sympathetic as hell. Alex Jones doesn't come off as sympathetic in the slightest and nobody will be able to deny the history of action of his "fans" when reacting to the conspiracy theories he trots out as fact.
 
#266
#266
T-TownVol said:
I hope that you guys keep shouting your censorship from the roof tops.
Click to expand...

It is not censorship. This is a company deciding they do not want to be associated with someone. I hear his app downloads are soaring right now. He still gets to run his mouth.
 
#267
#267
ClearwaterVol said:
There is no such thing as a slippery slope. Judge each case on the merits. I have serious reservations whether any such case could ever be maintained against Jones, the radio station or You Tube, but I understand companies not wanting to find out.



No, this is not a democrat/republican issue this is a green, as in money, issue. Nobody sane people really give two sh!ts about AJ, but you really don't want to be the test case on something like this. Plaintiff is likely to be sympathetic as hell. Alex Jones doesn't come off as sympathetic in the slightest and nobody will be able to deny the history of action of his "fans" when reacting to the conspiracy theories he trots out as fact.
Click to expand...

You are not that naive.
 
#268
#268
ClearwaterVol said:
There is no such thing as a slippery slope. Judge each case on the merits. I have serious reservations whether any such case could ever be maintained against Jones, the radio station or You Tube, but I understand companies not wanting to find out.



No, this is not a democrat/republican issue this is a green, as in money, issue. Nobody sane people really give two sh!ts about AJ, but you really don't want to be the test case on something like this. Plaintiff is likely to be sympathetic as hell. Alex Jones doesn't come off as sympathetic in the slightest and nobody will be able to deny the history of action of his "fans" when reacting to the conspiracy theories he trots out as fact.
Click to expand...


I would be perfectly fine with judging each case on its merits . This is where the problem comes in , if you judge AJ on what he says don’t you also have to judge the other accounts on what they say if you are applying the same rules to all ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#269
#269
ClearwaterVol said:
It is not censorship. This is a company deciding they do not want to be associated with someone. I hear his app downloads are soaring right now. He still gets to run his mouth.
Click to expand...

We have gone through this before. It is censorship by this company on their platform.
 
#270
#270
I’m fine with them banning things, but at least pretend to be even handed like you say you’re going to be. If you’re going to ban Alex Jones then ban Antifa and other groups espousing violence through “resistance”, posting people’s addresses, etc. Instead we see a steady stream of “alt right” or conservative pages taken down. I would rather FB say we don’t like this stuff so it we took it down as opposed to pretending to be noble gatekeepers who come down on both sides equally.
 
#271
#271
Did Jones do something recently that led to this?
 
#272
#272
DancingOutlaw said:
I’m fine with them banning things, but at least pretend to be even handed like you say you’re going to be. If you’re going to ban Alex Jones then ban Antifa and other groups espousing violence through “resistance”, posting people’s addresses, etc. Instead we see a steady stream of “alt right” or conservative pages taken down. I would rather FB say we don’t like this stuff so it we took it down as opposed to pretending to be noble gatekeepers who come down on both sides equally.
Click to expand...

This is what will be shown to the courts in spades if it goes to court , they will show thousands of examples of bias because they don’t treat all accounts equal .
 
#275
#275
ClearwaterVol said:
It is not censorship. This is a company deciding they do not want to be associated with someone. I hear his app downloads are soaring right now. He still gets to run his mouth.
Click to expand...

Kind of like a business telling their employees to stand for the anthem? This clown was censored from a public forum, no other way to look at it. It always comes back to who will judge each case on its merits, no one is qualified. The correct way is to turn it off, judge it yourself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top