moron and complete douchebag. But does anyone on here support this???
http://www.jamestownsun.com/enterta...ther-tech-companies-delete-content-alex-jones
http://www.jamestownsun.com/enterta...ther-tech-companies-delete-content-alex-jones
Alex Jones is a . . .
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
You don't believe that private companies should have the ability to run their companies as they want? You don't believe that private companies should not be forced to "report" or broadcast information that they don't want on their network? You believe government should be able to tell private companies what they have to say?
Just how much of a liberal are you, snowflake?
If you don't like how a private company wants to run their business, go make your own company where you can set the rules.
Just how much of a liberal are you, snowflake?
If you don't like how a private company wants to run their business, go make your own company where you can set the rules.
I'm sorry. I missed the part where I said they couldn't do this. Oh. That's right. I didn't.
To paraphrase one of your tired rants - reading comprehension, you should try it.
My question is not whether they can, but whether anyone on here thinks they should. In other words, is it a good idea for social media outlets to censor someone based on their political beliefs - which is what this boils down to.
Yep, you bombed reading comprehension again.
I never argued that you said they "couldn't" do this. I reportedly asked "you don't believe that they should be able to do" those certain things. I was clearly giving you the opportunity to either reinforce or back down from your opinion. In no way did I make a claim that you believed they "couldn't" do it, and there is nothing in my post that would have led anyone into thinking that.
God, Murox may claim it wasn't a tier 3, but this may prove otherwise.
Hey, moron. Try reading the thread. Tier 3 accused me of claiming that he said the companies "couldn't" do what they did. I never even remotely hinted that. I very clearly was challenging his opinion that they shouldn't do that, which is entirely different from "couldn't."
This is exactly what I fvcking mean. Reading comprehension. Again, this is basic shit. We have a guy who claims not to be a tier 3 law school grad who monumentally fvcks up basic reading.
You said:
Your questions all stem from the assumption that I want to prevent these tech companies from doing this through government action - a concept that I never proposed. That's clearly what you intended. Your post makes no sense otherwise.
Clearly they have the ability to do it. They already have.
My question is whether or not anyone on this board believed that this censorship was a good idea. Nothing more.
Your question is overly broad and vague, because you claim Jones is political speech. That's the only way your claim the tech companies are censoring due to political beliefs is valid. I don't think this is as simple and broad as that.
Is advocating attacking others political speech? I don't think it is. I think Jones has went over the line of mere politics and violated the TOS of all these tech companies, so fvck him. I also think he doesn't believe his own shit and it's all entertainment to make a buck....but he only claims that when he is being sued.
This has a lot more to do with the tech companies having been weak against this shit than anything else. From cyber-bullying to revenge porn to fvxking Al Qeada, they have been dropping the ball for years . The Russian election stuff was the last straw, every government had an eye on the companies now. This shit is bad for business.
Don't cry for Jones. He has his own website still.
Is advocating attacking others political speech? I don't think it is. I think Jones has went over the line of mere politics and violated the TOS of all these tech companies, so fvck him. I also think he doesn't believe his own shit and it's all entertainment to make a buck....but he only claims that when he is being sued.
This has a lot more to do with the tech companies having been weak against this shit than anything else. From cyber-bullying to revenge porn to fvxking Al Qeada, they have been dropping the ball for years . The Russian election stuff was the last straw, every government had an eye on the companies now. This shit is bad for business.
Don't cry for Jones. He has his own website still.
Now, after saying that, go back and read what you falsely attributed to me saying: “I missed the part where I said they couldn’t do this. Oh. That’s right. I didn’t.”
My response to you never insinuated that you thought they COULDN’T do it. Of course I didn’t think that you thought they weren’t allowed to do that. I don’t think you’re THAT stupid.
My questions were to ask and give you the opportunity to say if you thought they should be able to do it.
Could and should are completely different.
Alex Jones: dropped out of community college. Never received a degree.
Why are the leading talking heads of the right uneducated? It's shocking, really, because cheeto's fan base is such a highly educated bunch who spend their Saturdays meeting to discuss meeting with their cars the next time.
Why are the leading talking heads of the right uneducated? It's shocking, really, because cheeto's fan base is such a highly educated bunch who spend their Saturdays meeting to discuss meeting with their cars the next time.
Hillary lost and Trump buried her forever. Had Biden run he could have beat trump and the bickering would cease
Alex jones is a moron and almost as crazy as most of the liberals on here
If that's true, there are a sh*t-ton of leftist blogs, celebs, and even politicians (Crazy Maxi anyone?) that should be subject to similar treatment. Otherwise, all these companies are doing is censoring ideas they disagree with, which may end up being a poor business decision.
Besides Raoul, no one else has answered the initial question.
Last edited:
Exactly us libertarians/conservatives just don’t quite fall in line like the left
I don't think anyone quite understands your stance on this.
Are you saying private companies shouldn't (remember, that's different than "couldn't") control what is posted/broadcast through their medium?
Are you saying Fox News should give the same amount of time to Democratic politicians as they do republicans? If not, how is that any different?
If a far left talking head with a decent following was saying and doing the things Alex Jones has done, I'm sure those companies would react the same.
This is the best take I’ve read on this....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/alex-jones-infowars-facebook.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/alex-jones-infowars-facebook.html
Perhaps. I don't know, I am not familiar with what they publish on their social media accounts.
I stopped reading after the writer, a former employee at Alliance Defending Freedom, attempted to defend them. The "freedom" in their name only applies if you are Christian and straight.
The ADF is the group who argued in a Texas court to have sodomy laws to make gay sex illegal. They are the group whose founder, James Dobson, claimed that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality. Their website claims children of lesbians are four times more likely to get raped even though researchers and scholars blasted the "study" as being inaccurate and illogical (and done, not surprisingly, by a bigoted Christian).
I haven't taken a firm stance one way or the other. I think there's an interesting dichotomy between the belief that a private entity should be allowed to regulate content as it sees fit without government interference versus the need for open and free speech and debate. I tend to lean towards the notion that, although the companies are certainly entitled to do what they want, it is not in their best interest or the best interest of society to restrict even fringe viewpoints.
I posted the article in order to generate discussion because I'm actually interested in the opinions of others on this board - including yours - so that I can consider and look at all sides of the issue. I just want to see open and honest debate from all sides. I obviously have conservative/libertarian leanings. That said, I'm trying a new posting strategy where I'm more open to the ideas and viewpoints of others, rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing. Does that mean the old persona I've created won't show through at times? Obviously not. It's hard to break old habits and open yourself to new concepts and ideas. In other words, it's a work in progress.
But at what point does this piss off the stockholders/investors? I think it is obvious no one wants to be associated with, say, neo-Nazis. That's why the TOS is there. I don't see how you feel that is against their best interest. Do you think it would help or hurt Amazon to sell swastika t-shirts? Are TOS's randomly enforced? It may seem like it, but these are huge platforms with hundreds of millions of users. Maybe some people get more slack than others; I believe Trump has violated the shit out of Twitter's TOS, but he is still there, and then Twitter decided world leaders can post whatever they want to. He definitely got slack before that new policy.
Where should the line be drawn on matters of national security? ISIS really took advantage of Twitter for a long time to recruit new members and call for attacks. I don't consider that free political speech, and also feel if a social media company can't/won't keep that kind of activity off their platform that is a time the federal government needs to step in and make them do it.
On a funny note, where do you draw the line between serious posts and obvious comedy/satire? The Iron Sheikh tweeting he is going to break everyone's backs and fvck them in the ass obviously violates Twitter's TOS, but it's obvious it's all a big joke.
I think a legitimate argument can be made that there is a clear line of demarcation between bigoted and racist hate speech, the promotion of terrorist acts or groups, and what morons like Jones, Glenn Beck, or Cathy Griffin do. Maybe not. Maybe the line is closer than I imagine. I think your post highlights part of the problem. The first question that must be answered is whether, or to what extent, social media companies have a moral or social obligation to restrict speech. If they do, which I think most people will agree there is certainly some level of obligation, (1) where do you draw the line, and (2) who is responsible for drawing it?
Similar threads
