d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Youtube, Apple, And Facebook Ban Infowars > Citing Violations Of Hate Speech Policy
12312Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 2190Replies: 111Track Topic
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
#1
Aug 6 2018 06:42pm
Quote
"YouTube, Apple and Facebook have removed main outlets for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website, citing repeated violations of policies against hate speech and glorifying violence. Infowars responded by accusing the companies of censorship.

The streaming service Spotify also expanded a ban imposed last week on some of Jones' content, saying Monday that "The Alex Jones Show has lost access to the Spotify platform."

On Sunday, Apple and iTunes deleted five podcasts related to Infowars and Jones. The other bans then piled up in quick succession.

"Apple does not tolerate hate speech," the company said in a statement. "We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions."

YouTube and Facebook had previously warned Jones and Infowars that they were accumulating "strikes" by violating the services' community standards.

Early Monday, Facebook announced that it had permanently removed four Alex Jones-related pages — the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page."


NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636030043/youtube-apple-and-facebook-ban-infowars-which-decries-mega-purge
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-removes-infowars-from-podcast-directory-1533538681
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/06/facebook-youtube-ban-alex-jones-infowars-over-hate-speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What say you, PaRD? How do you weigh free speech vs hate speech? Are these companies in the right or is this censorship?
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,296.69
#2
Aug 6 2018 06:48pm
guilty pleasure to listen to for humor reasons

despise him as a person and how he manipulates and harms vulnerable people

would not ban
Member
Posts: 53,441
Joined: Nov 7 2009
Gold: 2,420.00
#3
Aug 6 2018 06:54pm
the free market will solve this problem
Member
Posts: 66,065
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
#4
Aug 6 2018 06:56pm
It's way cheaper than removing millions of fake/multis/trolls accounts, which could directly impacting their market value.
Those companies should not even be allowed to exist.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Aug 6 2018 06:58pm
Member
Posts: 40,044
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Gold: 32,161.71
#5
Aug 6 2018 07:09pm
apple, youtube, Facebook have rights as private organizations to advocate for themselves.

they are not restricting Alex Jones to preach his views, they are just banning jones from their private mediums. jones can stand outside his house and shout all he wants.

regardless, he was offered several notices which he chose not to comply with.

I'd imagine these organizations actually consulted with their legal teams before taking actions and issuing statements, hue

This post was edited by Bazi on Aug 6 2018 07:09pm
Member
Posts: 45,874
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
#6
Aug 6 2018 07:28pm
I'd support regulating the major social media sites as limited public forums that must abide by anti-censorship laws due to having monopolistic control over major forms of expression.
As long as they are the gatekeepers of speech, they should be regulated.

My real qualm is whether the Russian-interference narrative can constructively lead to oversight of social media to ensure more freedoms, or if it would necessarily be used to instead curtail freedoms
Member
Posts: 40,044
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Gold: 32,161.71
#7
Aug 6 2018 07:34pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2018 08:28pm)
I'd support regulating the major social media sites as limited public forums that must abide by anti-censorship laws due to having monopolistic control over major forms of expression.
As long as they are the gatekeepers of speech, they should be regulated.

My real qualm is whether the Russian-interference narrative can constructively lead to oversight of social media to ensure more freedoms, or if it would necessarily be used to instead curtail freedoms


a major reason they (organizations in question here) are in the clear is because there is a difference between inciting violence/hatred and free speech.

~eradicating parasites, pizza gate, harassment of sandy hook parents to "confess the truth", just examples off the top of my head but I'm sure there are more

Member
Posts: 77,539
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
#8
Aug 6 2018 07:37pm
Quote (Jupe @ Aug 6 2018 07:54pm)
the free market will solve this problem


i think it just did :o

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2018 08:28pm)
I'd support regulating the major social media sites as limited public forums that must abide by anti-censorship laws due to having monopolistic control over major forms of expression.
As long as they are the gatekeepers of speech, they should be regulated.

My real qualm is whether the Russian-interference narrative can constructively lead to oversight of social media to ensure more freedoms, or if it would necessarily be used to instead curtail freedoms


gate keepers my ass, there is stormfront for those that don't want to use youtube, facebook and twitter because it's "biased"
didn't realize you were a big government guy

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 6 2018 07:41pm
Member
Posts: 37,611
Joined: May 3 2007
Gold: 119,903.34
#9
Aug 6 2018 07:40pm
Hopefully Trump weighs in on this so we can get some good entertainment.
Member
Posts: 16,621
Joined: Jan 7 2017
Gold: 90.58
#10
Aug 6 2018 07:50pm
Good. Hope that nutter repents. Sandy Hook bullshit was insane too, and I hope those families get a lot of $.

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Aug 6 2018 07:50pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
12312Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact