Note
 

It has started

Alex Jones has been banned.  I am certain that many are cheering but this is nothing to cheer about.  Silencing someone because you disagree with them is wrong; and who will be next?  The open exchange of ideas is to be cherished because that is how societies grow.  Consider this; what if the voices of those that opposed slavery had been silenced?

Comments
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  •  beatleguy: 
     

    In the U.K. they've gone after the right with a vengeance, silencing them any & every way they can! Including DEATH THREATS! Katie Hopkins & Nigel Farage to name only a couple

     
     129 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  SecretCorners: 
       

      They have also expanded their hate speech laws to more or less silence anyone they care to; and this is the government doing it.  They are even talking about banning people with online presences from running for public office.  They are afraid that certain people that have a strong following online could actually become members of Parliament.

       
       129 days ago 
      0 points
       
  •  diogenese19348: 
     

    Interesting article about it on the Verge. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/8/17662546/apple-alex-jones-infowars-ban-app-podcast

    I would point out these are all privately owned platforms.  The tech companies involved have the right to remove anybody they damned well please.  This is not censorship of public airwaves, that would be the Internet, and Infowars is alive and well for anybody who is able to use a browser.  It still shows up on Google search, and you can get Infowar apps which allow you to see the podcasts in both the Apple and Android stores.

    All the private platorms have TOS's just like this place does, and if you don't follow them, they are within their legal rights to remove you.

    If you don't like the platform, don't visit it, it's as simple as that.  That includes Facebook, Google+, whatever.  They aren't monopolies, you aren't forced to go there, and you have no right to try to dictate what is or isn't presented on them except by not utilizing that service.

    And everybody here backs net neutrality right?  Because if you don't, well this is the reason.

     
     129 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    1 point
     
    •  SecretCorners: 
       

      Yes, they are privately owned platforms but they are also businesses and they can be regulated.  Here is one thing you missed; they claim to be neutral but clearly are not.  Therefore, they can be declared to be publishers and not platforms.  Here is an example, Twitter blocked an account that took the tweets of Sarah Jeong and replaced the word White with Jews and Blacks; exact same tweet but with a different target of the racism.  Sarah Jeong twitter account is still up.  So if these companies wants to be publishers then fine, they can be publishers and face all the problems that can come from being publishers.  They can't call themselves a platform and then deny certain groups the right to speak  while allowing others to continue.  It is quite clear what they are doing; and no, it has nothing to do with their ToS; they are trying to use the ToS to justify what they are doing but it isn't working.  Leaving up one racist person's account but taking down another is clear as to their intent.  If they agree with the racist person they are happy to let them spew their racism as much as they want.

      You just tried to bring a strawman into the discussion but we are going to let you keep him.  This has nothing to do with net neutrality.  To help you remember, net neutrality is that ISPs have to treat all packets the same.

       
       129 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  diogenese19348: 
         

        It isn't a strawman.  Losing net neutrality will let Verizon and Comcast be the gatekeepers, and they will have the same financial incentives to do what Google Apple and Facebook are doing.  You look it as ideological, it isn't.  What they are worried about is their bottom line, not free speech.  And that is the whole point. 

        Everybody knows it doesn't have to do with their TOS, they are trying to stave off regulations that will hurt their business.

        And if the large ISP's start doing it well Alex Jones and friends will be knocked off the Internet for their customers period because you will not be able to reach them.

        No gatekeeper is neutral.  It's impossible.

        Now do you understand?

         
         127 days ago 
        0 points
         
  •  viccles2004: 
     

    We can't have people thinking for themselves can we?

     
     129 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  Greystarfish1: 
     

    Christian Conservatives are being blocked, too. There are Facebook pages, that have opened GAB accounts, because of the censorship. I see a lot of lawsuits over this. The websites, that are publicly traded, like Facebook, have lost a ton of money.  

     
     129 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  jjmcd: 
     

    And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Lots of conservative outlets, conservative candidates, etc. are being totally blocked, and many others are being more subtly disadvantaged by skewed search engines. Only liberal speak is allowed "to protect democracy".

     
     129 days ago 
    0 points
     
Info
 
Posted: 08.08.2018
Comments: 9
Tags: censorship  free speech  
Vote
 
0 votes
Recommend
 
It has started