Alex jones banned from youtube, apple & facebook

[b.c.]

I have issue with those graphs. As I am on the email list for many of those sites, like Alternet, Daily Beast, Daily KOS, MoveOn, Democracy NOW; and I regularly check many of the other sites on the list, such as the WaPo, HuffPo, Drudge Report, InfoWars, NPR, BBC, Reuters, and even occasionally Jezebel; many of those positions are incorrect.

For one, Jezebel is possibly more left leaning and more absolute trash the even InfoWars. It is absolutely gynocentric and chock full of misandry, and brags about basically being man-hating feminazi cunts. NPR and the BBC are openly biased left, Slate, Mic, and the Huffington Post are also far more left than those charts have them, and are closer to the junk side of the tank than they are to news. ABC, NBC, & CBS trend more left than centrist, although they do a good job of at least attempting to minimize the skew. I would argue that Reason is not right at all, and I would argue that the New York Post and the Daily Mail are absolute trash, with relatively no decent or fair content. Also, how did Vox and Buzzfeed make it to even approaching respectable?

Overall, I would say the top is closer to being accurate, but they both appear to be skewed by the interpretation and application of the political Overton Window, rather than a stringently political measurement.

I agree the graphs may not necessarily be set in stone, however, like I said, I've seen several others and with a few exceptions they generally hold consistent. I am not familiar with Jezebel, however I personally object to terminology such as feminazi and that "c" word you used. And Infowars is left leaning?? Certainly you didn't mean to say that.

I disagree that Slate and Huffington Post are "closer to the junk side of the tank than they are to news." That they are left leaning and biased, there is no question. However, whatever their TAKE, they both provide links and references on what news they report, (while their op-eds are exactly that - OPINIONS) references that can be double checked and VERIFIED.

So that while one may not agree with the particular spin or slant of their report, one CANNOT dispute the actual FACTS behind the story.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Mr Bean talking sense about freedom of speech:

An excellent speech. Thanks for posting.

 

[SonyToyo]

Mr Bean talking sense about freedom of speech:

I love him even more now

 

[SonyToyo]

Liberals actually believe that whatever they think in those empty heads should be mandated. Free Speech as long as you're saying f*** Donald Trump. But no freedom of speech if you say you don't agree with alternative lifestyle. Can't have it both ways. I don't have to like alternative lifestyle I don't have to like minorities I can have my own opinion. Not only do they want to be the PC police and infringe on the First Amendment they want to be the thought police also. I can't have any thoughts that disagree with theirs. This is just plain insanity.

This comment reflects every political sub on this forum. Well said.

Enough with the hypocritical PC axe grinding

 

[dongalong]

The most misrepesented person on the net, a homosexual, married to a black man, of jewish and Christian origin who is hated by the alt-right. He is extremely intelligent and a provocateur but dares to criticise feminists and supports Trump, clearly a total Nazi.
Milo Yiannopoulos marries black boyfriend in Hawaii, declares himself ‘worst white supremacist ever’

 

[dongalong]

Tim Pool tries his best to be neutral, I like his videos.

 

[LinuxLucifer]

By saying the platforms are private, it means they are not owned by the government. Therefore, publicly traded or no. t they can set their own standards and enforce them as they see fit. There is no slope, you are the only slip. I can't sue the NYTimes for refusing to print a column or give equal time to batshit crazy - ditto with facebook and the others. Where people choose to get their sources is up to them and has always been that way, except when the fairness doctrine covered network TV.

You and the rest of the batshit crazy right are upset because your loose cannons are being shut down and held accountable. Don't like it? Don't use that platform, create your own. In an era where Trump wants to bring back asbestos and deregulate every protection that exists for citizens, he will never be able to regulate the press or internet like you and he would like.

You're talking about apples and oranges, though. The NYT is a news outlet. Facebook is not, unless it changes its operating model. Neither is YouTube. No rational person would believe half of the stuff the Alex Jones has covered; although some of the InfoWars stuff is conceivably more plausible, though still kind of 'out there'. And more specifically, with the following that Alex Jones has/had. a viewership in the millions, as an investor, I would be rather upset that by this removal, millions of ads are not being shown. Yes, he is outrageous, and with a political bent that is far more right than most of the american public, arguably goes against sanity.

Rather than make an argument, you attempt to insult me, calling me 'bat-shit crazy right'. While the verdict is still out on my sanity, I am quite the centrist politically, and I am devout in my belief of a minimalist government. Minimal taxation, minimal regulation, and maximum freedom. Freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom from oppression--of any sort or kind. This is accomplished via the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, protected by the second amendment. I am adamantly against the initiation of violence, as it never solves a problem, it only creates more; but allows for the response to the initiation of violence swifter than any government entity could. This is my political stance. Freedom, thought, and careful conscience, while using the scientific method to delve deeper into the truth of life, the universe, and everything.

Social Media companies are not News Companies, because they would otherwise be called news companies. They are self-reportedly there for digital social interactions between people. By this definition, they are, in fact, a digital public square, and there for the discourse and furtherance of the conversations people have, or want to hear. By the very fact that Alex Jones/InfoWars had amassed a viewership of millions, it becomes obvious that his is a conversation that people want to hear--whether they actually believe in what he says or they just want to laugh at him and wonder how on earth he has stayed afloat for decades or even play a drinking game based on how many conspiracies he spouts is irrelevant--which is the other side of the free speech argument that most people never fully get. The Freedom of Speech is not just about being able to say whatever you want to say--it is also about the freedom to listen or watch or read whatever argument you want to look at. This is known throughout the scientific community, although IMHO, not adhered to as much as it should be.

InfoWars has its own website, and it has existed for many years. I imagine it is getting a plus-sized internet bill right about now. But here is the problem, from About YouTube - YouTube:

Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.

We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.

Our values are based on four essential freedoms that define who we are.

Freedom of Expression
We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.

Freedom of Information
We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.

Freedom of Opportunity
We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.

Freedom to Belong
We believe everyone should be able to find communities of support, break down barriers, transcend borders and come together around shared interests and passions.​

By banning Alex Jones, YouTube has violated almost every core component of its mission statements. They cannot claim credibility, or sincerity when they violate anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of opportunity, or the freedom to belong. So unless they change it to read,

Freedom*,
*So long as you agree with Us.​

They really have no claim to ethics, morals, standards, or legitimacy. Certainly not as a publicly traded company. And wouldn't you know it, far before the government has gotten involved, the relatively free market has responded as these companies shares have dropped significantly. There's a recent saying among the investment crowd, "Get Woke, Go Broke."

 

[dongalong]

You've probably never listened to Alex Jones but recent events are having a negative effect on him, I've never seen him as downbeat as this.

 

[b.c.]

The most misrepesented person on the net, a homosexual, married to a black man, of jewish and Christian origin who is hated by the alt-right. He is extremely intelligent and a provocateur but dares to criticise feminists and supports Trump, clearly a total Nazi.
Milo Yiannopoulos marries black boyfriend in Hawaii, declares himself ‘worst white supremacist ever’

I don't recall suggesting he's a nazi, though the reference I cited clearly mentioned an association.

Besides, I don't know what his being gay or married to black man has to do with ANYTHING. There are gay supporters of Trump and right winged ideology, a black surgeon in Trump's administration, and a black Supreme Court justice, all of whom have worked contrary to the common good of people like THEM.

Yiannopoulos himself has been cited as making several self loathing remarks. The plain simple truth being, there happens to be self loathing individuals in the world, some of whom are inclined to take down their own.

The accounts of Yiannopoulos's positions, actions, and statements are a matter of record. And even IF he says and does what he does for no other reason than he gets off on being a provocateur, he is no less reprehensible for it because of his role as a purveyor and promoter of hate based ideology and thought, REGARDLESS of what he is or who he's married:

Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia

 

[LinuxLucifer]

I agree the graphs may not necessarily be set in stone, however, like I said, I've seen several others and with a few exceptions they generally hold consistent. I am not familiar with Jezebel, however I personally object to terminology such as feminazi and that "c" word you used. And Infowars is left leaning?? Certainly you didn't mean to say that.

I disagree that Slate and Huffington Post are "closer to the junk side of the tank than they are to news." That they are left leaning and biased, there is no question. However, whatever their TAKE, they both provide links and references on what news they report, (while their op-eds are exactly that - OPINIONS) references that can be double checked and VERIFIED.

So that while one may not agree with the particular spin or slant of their report, one CANNOT dispute the actual FACTS behind the story.

Specifically regarding Jezebel as absolute trash, https://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have. You are correct in assuming that I did not mean that InfoWars is left-leaning. I did not. What I mean is that, in both infographics, you have a two-dimensional plot, the X-axis being political locale, the Y-axis being quality of content. It is possible for one to compare different data points solely along the quality axis and ignoring the political-stance axis, unless you are a single-track individual. I will note your objection to the use of feminazi and 'cunt', but it will not preclude me from using those words. I am, after all, a freedom of speech absolutist. Notably, specifically regarding my description of Jezebel as such, since they get so involved with their identity as a possessor of a cum-dumpster of a sex organ, even often to the exclusion of self-identified trans-women, I think it is an appropriate description.

You are free to disagree, and I appreciate that we can at least agree on a few points. I am quite aware of the difference between op-eds and news, my issue is the rampant editorialization of the news, and the constant injection of commentary. Which is why I have to get my news from so many sources--to compare them, and see what facts are being left out of both sides. Because facts and truth are what matters. If someone shoots and kills someone, that would be a provable fact, with a possible meaning. But if another fact is left out, such as the person that was shot was raging and charging with a weapon, then that additional fact changes the whole coloration of the first fact. Rather than being a homicide, it becomes clear to a rational thinker that the shooter was acting in self-defense.

This happens all too often in the media, who lately have generally been acting as political conspirators to get an agenda pushed--and it happens on both sides. The left leaves out inconvenient truths just as much as the right side does; the only question being how far is the particular source motivated by political ideology? It is quite sad, to me, that unbiased reporting seems to have died off a long time ago.

 

[phonehome]

Ok fine so they are not "news organizations"

It does not change the fact that they are are also privately held non government or government affiliated entities and as such just ans the NYT can decide who they print and do not print they can decide who they allow to use their platform and who not to irregardless of what they say or do not say in their "mission statement" they can choose to follow or not follow in any time they want for any reason they want or not even have reason past "because we want to" or "because we say so".

They are NOT a "PUBLIC square" in any true sense of the word no more than if I bought what had been an area once owned by the city that had been used for such things. It is now a "private square" and I can decide who i allow to use or not use it and the people i decide I do not want to use it can talk and "the first amendment" and freedom of speech from now till hell freezes over and that does not mean nor will it force me to let them use my "platform"

 

[dongalong]

Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia

Who wrote that? Are you sure that you can trust their opinion?
Guilt by association, is usually a tactic used in hit pieces:

There was a period when the "alt-right" was seperate from the far right but recently the media have grouped them all together with the goal of demonising the more moderate ideas of the centre-right.

Association with the alt-right
Yiannopoulos is commonly associated with the alt-right.[141][83][122] In a November 2016 interview with Channel 4, Yiannopoulos talked about his relationship with the movement – "We're fellow travellers on some issues. But I'm very pro-Iraq, I'm very pro-Israel. There are all sorts of points of difference, I think".[142]

In a Breitbart article, Yiannopoulos and a co-author described the alt-right movement as "dangerously bright." The Tablet claimed many of these intellectual backers write for publications Tablet describes as racist and antisemitic, like VDARE and American Renaissance.[19] The Breitbart article was criticised by opponents of the alt-right for excusing the extremist elements of the movement, and also by the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer which holds that racism and antisemitism are pillars of the alt-right.[143]

The Anti-Defamation League classifies Yiannopoulos as part of the alt-lite; a term used to distinguish individuals sometimes associated with the alt-right from those who are openly white nationalist and anti-semitic.[144][145]

A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[146]

In October 2016, during an interview with BBC, Yiannopoulos argued that the alt-right was primarily concerned with 'immigration, trade and political correctness and free speech generally'. Yiannopoulos suggested that the alt-right takes a number of different forms, from 'classical-liberals, disaffected leftists, ordinary conservatives, and this new young very energised, trolly, mischievous youthful contingent that has suddenly become interested in politics again, and that's the wing that I am most closely associated with, because that's the most exciting bit'. Yiannopoulos described this contingent of the alt-right as 'sort of unstoppable at the moment' and 'the bit of the movement that will win'.[147]

 

[dongalong]

Milo Yiannopoulos - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Infogalactic appears to be less opinionated than Wikipedia.

 

[b.c.]

Who wrote that? Are you sure that you can trust their opinion?
Guilt by association, is usually a tactic used in hit pieces:

Well, that's assuming the Wikipedia article is also biased, or as you put it "a hit piece."

However, much like those "leftist" news sources that some want to question, this Wikipedia article is ALSO replete with footnotes and references. So that at SOME point it has to cease being what you call "their opinion" and become FACT.

For example are the discovered email communications between Milo and neo-nazis fiction?

Is it fiction that he had, in an interview, said, "If I could choose, I wouldn't be a homosexual'. Asked if he would be willing to cure himself of homosexuality, if such a thing was ever invented, Yiannopoulos replied "Well, it would be career suicide, but I probably would, yeah."

Is it fiction that his comments re. Ghostbusters and Leslie Jones, including one in which he called her reply "barely literate" resulted in twitter attacks against her by his followers, and that he was subsequently banned "for what the company cited as 'inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others'."

And is this account fiction:

"On 26 June 2018, reports surfaced that Yiannopoulos had told at least two news organisations who had requested comments, that he wanted vigilantes to shoot journalists. According to a reporter for the New York Observer, he wrote in a text message "I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight".

Two days later, following a shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland in which five people were killed, Yiannopoulos denied that his comments were responsible, adding that his remarks were a joke. He later posted on Instagram that he sent the messages to troll journalists. On Facebook he wrote "You’re about to see a raft of news stories claiming that I am responsible for inspiring the deaths of journalists." and "The truth, as always, is the opposite of what the media tells you.""

(source: Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia)

Which brings us right back to the start of this particular round of discussion in which you speculated as to the cause of our coming from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I think (as in, it is MY opinion) that you are unwilling to accept sources of information, even those that cite references and FACTS, as being VALID, when they are critical of those and that which YOU are inclined to defend and make excuses for.

 

[LinuxLucifer]

I don't recall suggesting he's a nazi, though the reference I cited clearly mentioned an association.

Besides, I don't know what his being gay or married to black man has to do with ANYTHING. There are gay supporters of Trump and right winged ideology, a black surgeon in Trump's administration, and a black Supreme Court justice, all of whom have worked contrary to the common good of people like THEM.

Yiannopoulos himself has been cited as making several self loathing remarks. The plain simple truth being, there happens to be self loathing individuals in the world, some of whom are inclined to take down their own.

The accounts of Yiannopoulos's positions, actions, and statements are a matter of record. And even IF he says and does what he does for no other reason than he gets off on being a provocateur, he is no less reprehensible for it because of his role as a purveyor and promoter of hate based ideology and thought, REGARDLESS of what he is or who he's married:

Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia

I've watched a number of Milo's speeches, and read a couple of his blog posts, and I have never once heard him utter a single thing out of hate, of any kind, for any group of people. Your 'argument' sounds like a feminist rant to a housewife, talking about 'internalized misogyny.

Milo's stance is simply that the individual is the atom of society, and that that individual is the best focus for governance and social impact.

Why do I have to be either Latino or white?

Why must I go along with any group, thought, or idea other than those that I choose?

Does being half-white preclude me from seeing the perspectives or agreeing with a Hispanic group or culture?

Does being part Latino and speaking Spanish preclude me from understanding the ideas, thoughts, or lives of white people?

Why is it that some of the most respected men of their fields are Black? Thomas Sowell, Barack Obama, WEB DuBois, Thurgood Marshall, Sidney Poitier, Colin Powell, Morgan Freeman, Bob Johnson... Many of them do not 'go along' with 'the rest of the black community', and why should they? Perhaps if 'the "oppressed" black community' would take a look at these outstanding gentlemen, or the likes of Bill Gates, Nikola Tesla, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DaVinci... they would be able to pull themselves up out of whatever they find themselves in and get busy. The first 'African-American' billionaire was born to a farmer and a school teacher in 1942. That man faced more real oppression than any black kid today does, and look at where he took himself. Colin Powell led the world's most powerful army, ever. Thomas Sowell was born in a poor segregated neighborhood in New York, and now he has written a textbook for the future most powerful businessmen and economists.

These men completely disprove the notions put forth by identity politics pundits and have pushed the entire world forward with the things they have done. They achieved in their lifetimes far more than most other men will ever hope for. They are some 'missing facts' out of the Identity politics lens that radically change "the truth". They didn't need a helping hand up, or Affirmative Action, because they built themselves up, like most Americans have the opportunity to. Yes, it is harder for some people, but honestly, any attempt to change that will result in an overall net negative.

This country was built on the foundational principles

 

[LinuxLucifer]

This country was built on the foundational principles of equality of opportunity and limitless potential, if you work hard for it. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[b.c.]

Milo Yiannopoulos - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Infogalactic appears to be less opinionated than Wikipedia.

First you cite Breitbart as a reliable news source. Now Infogalactic? lolz

Are you referring to the same Infogalactic that was created by an alt-right activist "VOX DAY" (real name, Theodore Rober Beale), who called Wikipedia "influenced and administered by left wing thought police"?

The same Beale who wrote SJW's Always Lie?

The same Beale who African American writer N. K. Jemisin called "a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole"?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. (oh wait... my error... Reiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiich.)

 

[b.c.]

Specifically regarding Jezebel as absolute trash, https://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have. You are correct in assuming that I did not mean that InfoWars is left-leaning. I did not. What I mean is that, in both infographics, you have a two-dimensional plot, the X-axis being political locale, the Y-axis being quality of content. It is possible for one to compare different data points solely along the quality axis and ignoring the political-stance axis, unless you are a single-track individual.

Another statement that doesn't make sense if I'm reading it right. If one compared data solely along one axis while ignoring the other, wouldn't one BE a single-track individual?

I will note your objection to the use of feminazi and 'cunt', but it will not preclude me from using those words. I am, after all, a freedom of speech absolutist. Notably, specifically regarding my description of Jezebel as such, since they get so involved with their identity as a possessor of a cum-dumpster of a sex organ, even often to the exclusion of self-identified trans-women, I think it is an appropriate description.

Yes, it is your option to use whatever misogynistic slur you heart desires, as is my option to object.

You are free to disagree, and I appreciate that we can at least agree on a few points. I am quite aware of the difference between op-eds and news, my issue is the rampant editorialization of the news, and the constant injection of commentary. Which is why I have to get my news from so many sources--to compare them, and see what facts are being left out of both sides. Because facts and truth are what matters. If someone shoots and kills someone, that would be a provable fact, with a possible meaning. But if another fact is left out, such as the person that was shot was raging and charging with a weapon, then that additional fact changes the whole coloration of the first fact. Rather than being a homicide, it becomes clear to a rational thinker that the shooter was acting in self-defense.

This happens all too often in the media, who lately have generally been acting as political conspirators to get an agenda pushed--and it happens on both sides. The left leaves out inconvenient truths just as much as the right side does; the only question being how far is the particular source motivated by political ideology? It is quite sad, to me, that unbiased reporting seems to have died off a long time ago.

The polarization of our news sources is endemic of the increasing polarization within our society. While that may be, it does not, nor should not, preclude our ability to discern the facts from the spin. Nor does it justify condemning the press as the "enemy of the people."

 

[SonyToyo]

Well Gavin McInnes was permabanned from Twitter.

This is a purge against anyone who doesn’t tow the far left line

 

[b.c.]

I've watched a number of Milo's speeches, and read a couple of his blog posts, and I have never once heard him utter a single thing out of hate, of any kind, for any group of people. Your 'argument' sounds like a feminist rant to a housewife, talking about 'internalized misogyny.

You really have an issue with feminists, don't you.

Milo's stance is simply that the individual is the atom of society, and that that individual is the best focus for governance and social impact.

Why do I have to be either Latino or white?

Why must I go along with any group, thought, or idea other than those that I choose?

Does being half-white preclude me from seeing the perspectives or agreeing with a Hispanic group or culture?

Does being part Latino and speaking Spanish preclude me from understanding the ideas, thoughts, or lives of white people?

Why is it that some of the most respected men of their fields are Black? Thomas Sowell, Barack Obama, WEB DuBois, Thurgood Marshall, Sidney Poitier, Colin Powell, Morgan Freeman, Bob Johnson... Many of them do not 'go along' with 'the rest of the black community', and why should they? Perhaps if 'the "oppressed" black community' would take a look at these outstanding gentlemen, or the likes of Bill Gates, Nikola Tesla, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DaVinci... they would be able to pull themselves up out of whatever they find themselves in and get busy. The first 'African-American' billionaire was born to a farmer and a school teacher in 1942. That man faced more real oppression than any black kid today does, and look at where he took himself. Colin Powell led the world's most powerful army, ever. Thomas Sowell was born in a poor segregated neighborhood in New York, and now he has written a textbook for the future most powerful businessmen and economists.

These men completely disprove the notions put forth by identity politics pundits and have pushed the entire world forward with the things they have done. They achieved in their lifetimes far more than most other men will ever hope for. They are some 'missing facts' out of the Identity politics lens that radically change "the truth". They didn't need a helping hand up, or Affirmative Action, because they built themselves up, like most Americans have the opportunity to. Yes, it is harder for some people, but honestly, any attempt to change that will result in an overall net negative.

This country was built on the foundational principles

Look, like I said, Milo's words and actions speak for themselves and they are a matter of record.

To suggest that all that has befallen him as a result strikes me as rather disingenuous on YOUR part. That's not even up for debate as far as I'm concerned so spare me your efforts to apologize for him.

As for that old argument about how the success of some black people should preclude any culpability and responsibility for what has happened for/to others (which, as always, is the endpoint of such arguments, not that I can even GUESS why you jumped onto that in THIS DISCUSSION), TRUST me, I don't need a black history lesson from YOU.