(August 8, 2018 at 7:57 am)The Industrial Atheist Wrote:

(August 7, 2018 at 11:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/techn...peech.html

If he got banned for breaking the rules, absolutely. That's how rules work.

But that's the question here: were the rules clear, unambiguous, and fairly applied, or were they simply used as a pretext for silencing Alex Jones. Several details of events point toward the latter, including the simultaneous removal of Jones from multiple platforms. If there was one event which sparked the removal, it would be understandable, but there wasn't.

---

(August 8, 2018 at 8:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: This is literally several companies deciding that they won't do business with Alex Jones anymore.  It's not an establishment conspiracy to silence someone speaking truth to power (the guy still has his own fuckin website, retail store, endorsements, and radio shows, so if it's a conspiracy it's a shitty conspiracy).  The guy just had a pattern of acting in a way that those platforms felt brought damage to their image, so they dumped him.

That's it.  No nefarious precedent, no great illuminati plan, just people deciding that they don't want to be associated with Alex Jones' particular brand of bullshit.

That's not what the companies themselves are claiming. So there's two questions here. First, is silencing based on content that doesn't violate their rules ethical? And second, if they were evicting him because of his content, then why are these companies lying about their reasons for doing so?

(August 8, 2018 at 11:56 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 8, 2018 at 8:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: This is literally several companies deciding that they won't do business with Alex Jones anymore.  It's not an establishment conspiracy to silence someone speaking truth to power (the guy still has his own fuckin website, retail store, endorsements, and radio shows, so if it's a conspiracy it's a shitty conspiracy).  The guy just had a pattern of acting in a way that those platforms felt brought damage to their image, so they dumped him.

That's it.  No nefarious precedent, no great illuminati plan, just people deciding that they don't want to be associated with Alex Jones' particular brand of bullshit.

That's not what the companies themselves are claiming.  So there's two questions here.  First, is silencing based on content that doesn't violate their rules ethical?  And second, if they were evicting him because of his content, then why are these companies lying about their reasons for doing so?

The companies are claiming that InfoWars' content repeatedly violated their policies, and they are booting him because of this content.  They are clearly stating that InfoWars breaks their rules on hate speech, bullying, etc.  One may not agree with their rules, or call the rules gray or up for interpretation, but InfoWars broke their rules, and have been booted from the platform, period.  They aren't "lying about their reasons for doing so."

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technol...index.html  

As to the question about removing content that doesn't violate their rules - I might not call it ethical, but it sure as hell is their legal right.  I don't have any real problem with any website removing content they don't want to host, regardless of the reason.  Nobody is guaranteed a platform for their views, especially if the platform is the private property of another entity.

Like if I posted a thread about atheism on a Christian forum that was within their rules (according to my interpretation, anyway), and it was still taken down - I might be irritated or annoyed, call them hypocrites, etc, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.  As Alex Jones himself has said - he has his own website, all the infowars yahoos can still go to that.

(August 8, 2018 at 12:07 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 8, 2018 at 11:56 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: That's not what the companies themselves are claiming.  So there's two questions here.  First, is silencing based on content that doesn't violate their rules ethical?  And second, if they were evicting him because of his content, then why are these companies lying about their reasons for doing so?

The companies are claiming that InfoWars' content repeatedly violated their policies, and they are booting him because of this content.  They are clearly stating that InfoWars breaks their rules on hate speech, bullying, etc.  One may not agree with their rules, or call the rules gray or up for interpretation, but InfoWars broke their rules, and have been booted from the platform, period.  They aren't "lying about their reasons for doing so."

(August 8, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 8, 2018 at 12:07 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The companies are claiming that InfoWars' content repeatedly violated their policies, and they are booting him because of this content.  They are clearly stating that InfoWars breaks their rules on hate speech, bullying, etc.  One may not agree with their rules, or call the rules gray or up for interpretation, but InfoWars broke their rules, and have been booted from the platform, period.  They aren't "lying about their reasons for doing so."

...Huh?  Alex Jones' content was both breaking their rules and pretty shitty for their image/company bottom lines/public relations.  They aren't mutually exclusive reasons.

Can anyone who has watched some of this guy's stuff comment on whether you consider him guilty of hate speech?

In case anyone had any doubts...

Facebook Wants Your Bank Account Data

(August 8, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: In case anyone had any doubts...

Facebook Wants Your Bank Account Data

You subscribe to the journal? You lucky bastard.

Quote:In case anyone had any doubts...

Facebook Wants Your Bank Account Data

Oh noes Facebook is doing what ever other company is trying to do

(August 8, 2018 at 3:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: Can anyone who has watched some of this guy's stuff comment on whether you consider him guilty of hate speech?

Have you Googled him? His content would make der Volkischer Beobachter blush and cringe.

(August 8, 2018 at 5:03 am)robvalue Wrote: The official line is that it's to do with hate speech, and not fake news. I don't watch his shit in detail, so I don't know how much hate speech he does. The complaints people have seem to do with the lack of transparency and examples given, although I would guess there's more going on behind the scenes that they don't want to publically air.

If he's inciting hatred and/or violence, then I fully support pulling his channels just based on that.

I thought it was the defamatory speech. I think the First Amendment of the US constitution protects hate speech but not defamatory speech. Nevertheless, Facebook is a private company and can therefore choose what speech is allows on its website. If they don't want Alex Jones on their website then it may not be a First Amendment issue.