infowars banned from uploading to youtube

[Sooth Sayer]

21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

With the repeal of net neutrality, didn't we decide that companies and the free market could decide what content to promote or throttle? 

I don't think that was the case being made but if so, explain why those same companies were actively engaged in the same dishonest behavior/tactics/practices before net neutrality was reversed. 

Free market doesn't give you free reign to censor millions of people that use your product or services. 

Does free matket give Starbucks the right to kick people out of their establishment based on appearance? And if you agree with that explain to me why.

No one in their right mind would deny financial prosperity to themselves just becuase they disagree with another person's political views. That is just absolutely childish. Oh I forgot, google is run by leftist juvenile children. 

My bad. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Sooth Sayer
Spell check

[GlitterRose]

14 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

Yeah...no. Alex called the kids crisis actors as he did with Sandy hook parents who were harassed and threatened for years over it. Google chose to nip it in the bud (too late really he should have never posted that crap). Pizzagate caused a guy to try to shoot the place up directly based off of Alex Jones content, the guy seemed troubled and Alex added fuel to the fire. Just like shouting fire in a crowded room that's not protected speech. He's not "just some conservative" he is a frothy mouth conspiracy porn hucksters putting people's lives in danger. 

A frothy mouthed conspiracy porn huckster.

Sometimes there are just not enough likes. 

[Gromdor]

47 minutes ago, Sooth Sayer said:

I don't think that was the case being made but if so, explain why those same companies were actively engaged in the same dishonest behavior/tactics/practices before net neutrality was reversed. 

Free market doesn't give you free reign to censor millions of people that use your product or services. 

Does free matket give Starbucks the right to kick people out of their establishment based on appearance? And if you agree with that explain to me why.

No one in their right mind would deny financial prosperity to themselves just becuase they disagree with another person's political views. That is just absolutely childish. Oh I forgot, google is run by leftist juvenile children. 

My bad. 

I never thought it was a good thing.  The whole repeal of net neutrality merely validated all those previous actions.  But apparently either free market does let you censor millions of people that use your products, kick people out of their establishments, and the like or what we have isn't a free market.  I've always been of the belief that Americans are more than willing to surrender their rights when it comes to business or as a condition of employment.  The claim of a free market and of individual choice is just a smoke screen.

How does the argument go?  If you don't like Youtube censoring Alex Jones, take your business elsewhere? 

[RoofGardener]

8 hours ago, Sooth Sayer said:

I don't think that was the case being made but if so, explain why those same companies were actively engaged in the same dishonest behavior/tactics/practices before net neutrality was reversed. 

Free market doesn't give you free reign to censor millions of people that use your product or services. 

Does free matket give Starbucks the right to kick people out of their establishment based on appearance? And if you agree with that explain to me why.

.....

Try going into Starbucks and shouting about how bad you think the establishment is, or how you hate coffee. See how long it is before you are kicked out.

When you enter Starbucks, you agree to their terms. It is the same with YouTube. You have no "right" or "entitlement" to post on YouTube. You have no "entitlement" to make money by posting on Youtube.

The New York Times publishes readers "letters to the editor" - a time honoured feature of newspapers. However, as a "user of their products and services",  you have no "entitlement" to demand that your letter be published. Is this censorship ? Is this an attack on your freedoms ?

Edited March 2, 2018 by RoofGardener

[SHaYap]

~

 

[00.02:28]

~

 

[aztek]

there is no such thing as bad publicity., it only works to his advantage

[Only_]

On 28/02/2018 at 6:52 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

They want a monopoly on information. That's why they take underhanded actions to censor and silence dissent. This cowardly strategy is anything but new. They did this during the Rush Limbaugh era. Some Democrats and some liberals targeted talk radio. They hated the fact that there were alternative conservative voices on the airwaves. They couldn't compete with leftist talk shows, so they tried to ban better programs through underhanded legislation. Some things never change.

There is a fine line between free speech and diffamation. Inforwars simply isn't good at walking it.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Space Commander Travis]

Really I wonder (another conspiracy theory coming up) if Alex's nutcaseness and the most extreme ridiculous stuff he comes out with isn't tolerated (if not actively encouraged) by the Authorities, whoever anyone wants the Authorities to be, as it provides a good excuse to treat all "conspiracy " or "alternative" news outlets with the same derision. 

[acidhead]

Alternative video hosting website launched in January 2018:

https://www.b****ute.com

[katurian]

9 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Really I wonder (another conspiracy theory coming up) if Alex's nutcaseness and the most extreme ridiculous stuff he comes out with isn't tolerated (if not actively encouraged) by the Authorities, whoever anyone wants the Authorities to be, as it provides a good excuse to treat all "conspiracy " or "alternative" news outlets with the same derision. 

I agree with this theory. Jones amps up his fervent foaming at the mouth demeanor for show and uses a lot of emotional appeals and a lack of intellectualism in his videos. He does a very good job at discrediting conspiracy theorists as a whole. 

The Parkland shooting is not what it appears, and anyone who looks into it on more than just surface level and uses a bit of critical thought would come to the same conclusion. That's all I'll say about that. 

[Paranormal Panther]

15 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

There is a fine line between free speech and diffamation. Inforwars simply isn't good at walking it.

There's not a fine line between free speech and thought control. Any group or person, who attempts the latter, should be identified and marginalized. I don't care what their political views are. Our First Amendment is not for just popular speech. Extant libel and slander laws can be wisely applied in cases of true defamation. The same holds true for "shouting fire". Other than these narrow limits, we should challenge any challenge to free speech. The stakes are too high to not do so. 

[Paranormal Panther]

14 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Really I wonder (another conspiracy theory coming up) if Alex's nutcaseness and the most extreme ridiculous stuff he comes out with isn't tolerated (if not actively encouraged) by the Authorities, whoever anyone wants the Authorities to be, as it provides a good excuse to treat all "conspiracy " or "alternative" news outlets with the same derision. 

That crossed my mind. He's not as bad as David Icke and Texe Marrs, but he often ruins his good points with the pro wrestler routine, as well as the hyperbole when he puts the worst spin on ordinary events. My guess is that the authorities are much more concerned with people who bust the system in an honest, nuanced manner. As for Alex Jones, I lean more towards attention-mongering ham than controlled opposition.

[Likely Guy]

On 3/1/2018 at 8:19 PM, ChaosRose said:

a frothy mouth conspiracy porn huckster

 

1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

attention-mongering ham

Bellicose buffoon.

[Only_]

14 hours ago, acidhead said:

Alternative video hosting website launched in January 2018:

https://www.b****ute.com

Infowars uses Youtube and social media to get wide exposure. That's the whole point. I love b****ute's initiative but clearly Alex Jones won't be getting much views there any time soon.

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[darkmoonlady]

Now Alex is losing advertisers as well. I think he's having a moment and not a good one. 

[Agent0range]

Alex Jones banned?  C'mon, you can't tell me middle earth lizard people are fake news.

[Space Commander Travis]

22 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Infowars uses Youtube and social media to get wide exposure. That's the whole point. I love b****ute's initiative but clearly Alex Jones won't be getting much views there any time soon.

 

b****ute? Do you only gain admittance to it if you can work out what';s asterixed out?

[Only_]

18 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

b****ute? Do you only gain admittance to it if you can work out what';s asterixed out?

The concept is interesting. It's a peer-to-peer, BitTorrent-powered video hosting platform. It's just not popular or well-known and at this point, it looks more like the trash container of Youtube than anything else.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Space Commander Travis]

Ah, bit chute? Hence why if you put the two words together it's asterisked out? That's funny. 

[Paranormal Panther]

15 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Ah, bit chute? Hence why if you put the two words together it's asterisked out? That's funny. 

I couldn't get my damn ass to move with the rest of the donkeys when I was at the Grand Canyon. I'm testing the filter.