Facebook suspends InfoWars

[Ostroeuropa]

Because they are....how many high profile leftists have been banned latley?

How many left wing people are largely based on social media and tell their millions of listeners that Clinton is a demon who smells of sulphur and creates a conspiracy that leads to the parents of mass shooting victims being chased across the country?

I know this is unlikely to be accepted but people like Alex Jones and even Trump get particular criticism because they're particularly bad.

This is ignoring the extent and level of hatred and misinformation peddled by left wing twitter spheres on the subjects of rape and dv for instance (two issues only, there are more), which are often likewise based in delusional conspiracy and prejudice, or the amount of lies peddled about things like the mens rights movement by the same leftists.

The lies peddled by the left have led to things like due process violations against men and title 9 violations and so on, proved in a court of law in many cases, and media witch hunts are fairly common. Do you remember the rolling stones debacle, for instance, that resulted in feminist mobs vandalizing the property of, threatening to castrate and murder, and harassing that fraternity members who were ultimately shown to be innocent?

Should rolling stones be banned?

[Vassenor]

You realise that Twitter is basically Trumps way of contacting the outside world right? Social media occasionally has to censor right wing extremists for the same reason mainstream media does; they peddle hatred and nonsense. I've never seen anyone actually compare left and right social media accounts and see which one is more likely banned. You've just assumed your group is targeted more often.

Because they are....how many high profile leftists have been banned latley?

How many high profile rightists have gotten banned from Twitter?

[Kramanica]

No there's very much just a left wing bias in the tech field. It's always been that way afaik.

Left wingers are famously very fond of huge corporations.

---

oh like calling white people goblins and hashatagging cancelwhite people?

seems legit

*high profile leftists

Actually, yeah. They are. When its political convenient for them, of course.

[Tobleste]

How many left wing people are largely based on social media and tell their millions of listeners that Clinton is a demon who smells of sulphur and creates a conspiracy that leads to the parents of mass shooting victims being chased across the country?

I know this is unlikely to be accepted but people like Alex Jones and even Trump get particular criticism because they're particularly bad.

This is ignoring the extent and level of hatred and misinformation peddled by left wing twitter spheres on the subjects of rape and dv for instance (two issues only, there are more), which are often likewise based in delusional conspiracy and prejudice, or the amount of lies peddled about things like the mens rights movement by the same leftists.

The lies peddled by the left have led to things like due process violations against men and title 9 violations and so on, proved in a court of law in many cases, and media witch hunts are fairly common. Do you remember the rolling stones debacle, for instance, that resulted in feminist mobs vandalizing the property of, threatening to castrate and murder, and harassing that fraternity members who were ultimately shown to be innocent?

Should rolling stones be banned?

I've seen plenty of mainstream media outlets covering things like that. The difference is that lunacy is the rule with Info Wars and the exception for the other outlets you've named.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is ignoring the extent and level of hatred and misinformation peddled by left wing twitter spheres on the subjects of rape and dv for instance (two issues only, there are more), which are often likewise based in delusional conspiracy and prejudice, or the amount of lies peddled about things like the mens rights movement by the same leftists.

The lies peddled by the left have led to things like due process violations against men and title 9 violations and so on, proved in a court of law in many cases, and media witch hunts are fairly common. Do you remember the rolling stones debacle, for instance, that resulted in feminist mobs vandalizing the property of, threatening to castrate and murder, and harassing that fraternity members who were ultimately shown to be innocent?

Should rolling stones be banned?

I've seen plenty of mainstream media outlets covering things like that. The difference is that lunacy is the rule with Info Wars and the exception for the other outlets you've named.

Do you have any actual proof for that assertion? A study or something perhaps?

[Kramanica]

I've seen plenty of mainstream media outlets covering things like that. The difference is that lunacy is the rule with Info Wars and the exception for the other outlets you've named.

Do you have any actual proof for that assertion? A study or something perhaps?

Nope.

[Tobleste]

Left wingers are famously very fond of huge corporations.

Less that they're in favor of them and more that they work for them and the rules are very selectively enforced just like with places like NS albeit on a larger scale. Places like Google, YouTube, Twitter, reddit etc etc very much lean to one side.

Those companies cater to a young and worldwide audience. Most of the people using them will dislike the ideology behind the American right. Regarding the rules being selectively enforced, if it was, Trumps twitter and the Donald on reddit would both be banned. It's not like they haven't given the companies in question enough justification.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Less that they're in favor of them and more that they work for them and the rules are very selectively enforced just like with places like NS albeit on a larger scale. Places like Google, YouTube, Twitter, reddit etc etc very much lean to one side.

Those companies cater to a young and worldwide audience. Most of the people using them will dislike the ideology behind the American right. Regarding the rules being selectively enforced, if it was, Trumps twitter and the Donald on reddit would both be banned. It's not like they haven't given the companies in question enough justification.

The only reason Trump hasn't been banned off of Twitter is because he's the god damn most powerful man on the planet and the amount of negative press that would be received from a ban isn't even close to worth it.

It's sorta the same with T_D, it's too large of a community to axe without negative backlash nowadays but smaller right wing and far right subs regularly get axed while their counterparts on the left oddly don't.

[Tobleste]

Those companies cater to a young and worldwide audience. Most of the people using them will dislike the ideology behind the American right. Regarding the rules being selectively enforced, if it was, Trumps twitter and the Donald on reddit would both be banned. It's not like they haven't given the companies in question enough justification.

The only reason Trump hasn't been banned off of Twitter is because he's the god damn most powerful man on the planet and the amount of negative press that would be received from a ban isn't even close to worth it.

It's sorta the same with T_D, it's too large of a community to axe without negative backlash nowadays but smaller right wing and far right subs regularly get axed while their counterparts on the left oddly don't.

The only right wing subs I know of that got banned from Twitter were the sort of ones who harassed other groups. The comparison between the two ignores the different scale of vitriol that comes from the right compared to the left. I can't remember any 'Sanders for President' equivalents to Pizzagate, any socialist Alex Jones or Clinton suggesting that John McCain was secretly a Muslim. The prettier and more disgusting stuff is coming from one side more than the other.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The only reason Trump hasn't been banned off of Twitter is because he's the god damn most powerful man on the planet and the amount of negative press that would be received from a ban isn't even close to worth it.

It's sorta the same with T_D, it's too large of a community to axe without negative backlash nowadays but smaller right wing and far right subs regularly get axed while their counterparts on the left oddly don't.

The only right wing subs I know of that got banned from Twitter were the sort of ones who harassed other groups. The comparison between the two ignores the different scale of vitriol that comes from the right compared to the left. I can't remember any 'Sanders for President' equivalents to Pizzagate, any socialist Alex Jones or Clinton suggesting that John McCain was secretly a Muslim. The prettier and more disgusting stuff is coming from one side more than the other.

I was more thinking LateStageCapitalism and other such left wing subs that regularly call for the deaths of people, defend and or deny various genocides and harass other subs yet somehow get away with all of it.

[Liriena]

But it has successfully diminished his reach by reducing the number of platforms available to him. Ergo, his shouting about how he's being censored will reach fewer people than his content before. With any luck, one day his entire media empire will go the way of Stormfront, suffering a prolongued, humilliating agony.

Hooray for censorship?

Not censorship.

[Vassenor]

But it has successfully diminished his reach by reducing the number of platforms available to him. Ergo, his shouting about how he's being censored will reach fewer people than his content before. With any luck, one day his entire media empire will go the way of Stormfront, suffering a prolongued, humilliating agony.

Hooray for censorship?

[Ostroeuropa]

Hooray for censorship?

Not censorship.

I think this is willfully ignoring how the public space and public square has become privatized due to capitalism and social media companies and so on. It's as dubious as pretending that if the government suddenly up and decided to privatize all the roads and sold them to corporate elites that it wouldn't be censorship to ban any form of socialism being discussed on them.

It is reliant on pretending corporations are a different kind of authority than government and what they do shouldn't count as oppressive even if when a government did it, it would be. It is a fundamentally pro-corporate point, which is what the people critical of left wing hypocrisy on the issue are alluding to.

ESPECIALLY in the context of corporations and government lobbying, the fusion of the elites into an oligarchic state with some elements privatized, revolving door between corporate and state positions, collapse of social mobility in favor of corporate aristocracy and so on. These corporations ARE our government, it is merely that large swathes of our government are aristocrats and lords and ladies who are beyond our control and act without seeking our consultation or representation.

It is an institution of power working to suppress ideas they don't like. That the people doing it are lords and ladies up and declaring you can no longer say these things on their extensive amount of property doesn't make it less statist or less state censorship, it merely means you haven't adequately updated your view of the state and the privatized nature of it, in ways antithetical to democracy and the public interest.

In the context of a corporate oligarchy "It's private property so they can do what they like" is shilling for a return to feudalism.

The king up and decides to ban all forms of speech they don't like on their property on penalty of exile.
Is this censorship?

No, ur wrong, it's his property and blah blah blah.

Nah dude, it's censorship. Thinking otherwise means you have to buy into the fundamental and flawed conceits capitalism peddles;

That corporate power is separate and distinct from government power, that it should not be subject to the same rules and treatment, that corporations do not require representatives and workplace democracy instead of government by dictat of the ceos, that it is a separate thing from government and should be viewed separately and subject to different expectations and rules.

By buying into this "It's not censorship" thing, you are essentially going against everything market socialism stands for and the principles it is built on, that the capitalist is comparable to the monarch, that leadership requires representation to be valid, that power structures in and of themselves are comparable and so on.

The power structure here is not subject to collective will and representation. That is a bad thing, not a reason to excuse its excesses and abuses as not counting, those excesses and abuses are in fact a symptom of that fundamental problem and recognizing them and how they are undesirable is vital to convincing the public to turn against them and demand they submit to the public will.

[Des-Bal]

(Image)

That doesn't actually change anything, Alex Jones being a fuck doesn't excuse the fuckery of others.

[Shofercia]

Mark Zuckerberg attempts to read Alex Jones' mind, bringing more hilarity to the debate: https://www.businessinsider.com/faceboo ... nes-2018-8

Mark Zuckerberg reportedly suspects that infamous Infowars founder Alex Jones wanted to get banned from Facebook all along, for the attention it would give him.

According to Jones, the World revolves around him. According to Zuckerberg, the World revolves around him. According to reality, the World still revolves around its axis.

According to a new report from The New York Times published Friday, citing anonymous sources, the Facebook CEO mulled over whether the faux-newsman "was purposefully trying to get kicked off the platform to gain attention" before finally pulling the trigger after Apple moved first and booted the Infowars podcasts from its iTunes directory. In other words, Zuckerberg thought Jones might believe the positives of getting banned from Facebook would outweigh the negatives, before the CEO ultimately bowed to public pressure and banned him anyway.

The "privileges" of getting banned from Facebook. Banned. Privileges. Now that Zuckerberg has humiliated himself, CNN will follow suit. Same article.

The recent moves to eject Alex Jones suggests a potential sea change in tech firms' approach to policing their platforms and their view of their responsibilities. That said, Twitter, unlike most other major social networks, has refused to crack down on Jones, insisting he doesn't violate its rules — though a recent analysis from CNN suggests otherwise.

CNN conducted an analysis of Alex Jones' tweets. Analysis. Of Tweets. By Alex Jones. Frankly, CNN, I'm not surprised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkeGDmXHbo

I expected some entertainment, but this is high quality shit. If only a reality show host was president...

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Mark Zuckerberg attempts to read Alex Jones' mind, bringing more hilarity to the debate: https://www.businessinsider.com/faceboo ... nes-2018-8

Mark Zuckerberg reportedly suspects that infamous Infowars founder Alex Jones wanted to get banned from Facebook all along, for the attention it would give him.

According to Jones, the World revolves around him. According to Zuckerberg, the World revolves around him. According to reality, the World still revolves around its axis.

According to a new report from The New York Times published Friday, citing anonymous sources, the Facebook CEO mulled over whether the faux-newsman "was purposefully trying to get kicked off the platform to gain attention" before finally pulling the trigger after Apple moved first and booted the Infowars podcasts from its iTunes directory. In other words, Zuckerberg thought Jones might believe the positives of getting banned from Facebook would outweigh the negatives, before the CEO ultimately bowed to public pressure and banned him anyway.

The "privileges" of getting banned from Facebook. Banned. Privileges. Now that Zuckerberg has humiliated himself, CNN will follow suit. Same article.

The recent moves to eject Alex Jones suggests a potential sea change in tech firms' approach to policing their platforms and their view of their responsibilities. That said, Twitter, unlike most other major social networks, has refused to crack down on Jones, insisting he doesn't violate its rules — though a recent analysis from CNN suggests otherwise.

CNN conducted an analysis of Alex Jones' tweets. Analysis. Of Tweets. By Alex Jones. Frankly, CNN, I'm not surprised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkeGDmXHbo

I expected some entertainment, but this is high quality shit. If only a reality show host was president...

Don't get me started on remixes of Alex Jones on InfoWars...

[Shofercia]

Mark Zuckerberg attempts to read Alex Jones' mind, bringing more hilarity to the debate: https://www.businessinsider.com/faceboo ... nes-2018-8



According to Jones, the World revolves around him. According to Zuckerberg, the World revolves around him. According to reality, the World still revolves around its axis.



The "privileges" of getting banned from Facebook. Banned. Privileges. Now that Zuckerberg has humiliated himself, CNN will follow suit. Same article.



CNN conducted an analysis of Alex Jones' tweets. Analysis. Of Tweets. By Alex Jones. Frankly, CNN, I'm not surprised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkeGDmXHbo

I expected some entertainment, but this is high quality shit. If only a reality show host was president...

Don't get me started on remixes of Alex Jones on InfoWars...

Just label it "analysis" and send it to CNN, you might get paid

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Don't get me started on remixes of Alex Jones on InfoWars...

Just label it "analysis" and send it to CNN, you might get paid

This doesn't look like analysis...

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not censorship.

I think this is willfully ignoring how the public space and public square has become privatized due to capitalism and social media companies and so on. It's as dubious as pretending that if the government suddenly up and decided to privatize all the roads and sold them to corporate elites that it wouldn't be censorship to ban any form of socialism being discussed on them.

It is reliant on pretending corporations are a different kind of authority than government and what they do shouldn't count as oppressive even if when a government did it, it would be. It is a fundamentally pro-corporate point, which is what the people critical of left wing hypocrisy on the issue are alluding to.

ESPECIALLY in the context of corporations and government lobbying, the fusion of the elites into an oligarchic state with some elements privatized, revolving door between corporate and state positions, collapse of social mobility in favor of corporate aristocracy and so on. These corporations ARE our government, it is merely that large swathes of our government are aristocrats and lords and ladies who are beyond our control and act without seeking our consultation or representation.

It is an institution of power working to suppress ideas they don't like. That the people doing it are lords and ladies up and declaring you can no longer say these things on their extensive amount of property doesn't make it less statist or less state censorship, it merely means you haven't adequately updated your view of the state and the privatized nature of it, in ways antithetical to democracy and the public interest.

In the context of a corporate oligarchy "It's private property so they can do what they like" is shilling for a return to feudalism.

The king up and decides to ban all forms of speech they don't like on their property on penalty of exile.
Is this censorship?

No, ur wrong, it's his property and blah blah blah.

Nah dude, it's censorship. Thinking otherwise means you have to buy into the fundamental and flawed conceits capitalism peddles;

That corporate power is separate and distinct from government power, that it should not be subject to the same rules and treatment, that corporations do not require representatives and workplace democracy instead of government by dictat of the ceos, that it is a separate thing from government and should be viewed separately and subject to different expectations and rules.

By buying into this "It's not censorship" thing, you are essentially going against everything market socialism stands for and the principles it is built on, that the capitalist is comparable to the monarch, that leadership requires representation to be valid, that power structures in and of themselves are comparable and so on.

The power structure here is not subject to collective will and representation. That is a bad thing, not a reason to excuse its excesses and abuses as not counting, those excesses and abuses are in fact a symptom of that fundamental problem and recognizing them and how they are undesirable is vital to convincing the public to turn against them and demand they submit to the public will.

This is legitimately a great post.

[Shofercia]

Just label it "analysis" and send it to CNN, you might get paid

This doesn't look like analysis...

It might to the network that "analyzed" how Trump counts steps...

[Ostroeuropa]

I think this is willfully ignoring how the public space and public square has become privatized due to capitalism and social media companies and so on. It's as dubious as pretending that if the government suddenly up and decided to privatize all the roads and sold them to corporate elites that it wouldn't be censorship to ban any form of socialism being discussed on them.

It is reliant on pretending corporations are a different kind of authority than government and what they do shouldn't count as oppressive even if when a government did it, it would be. It is a fundamentally pro-corporate point, which is what the people critical of left wing hypocrisy on the issue are alluding to.

ESPECIALLY in the context of corporations and government lobbying, the fusion of the elites into an oligarchic state with some elements privatized, revolving door between corporate and state positions, collapse of social mobility in favor of corporate aristocracy and so on. These corporations ARE our government, it is merely that large swathes of our government are aristocrats and lords and ladies who are beyond our control and act without seeking our consultation or representation.

It is an institution of power working to suppress ideas they don't like. That the people doing it are lords and ladies up and declaring you can no longer say these things on their extensive amount of property doesn't make it less statist or less state censorship, it merely means you haven't adequately updated your view of the state and the privatized nature of it, in ways antithetical to democracy and the public interest.

In the context of a corporate oligarchy "It's private property so they can do what they like" is shilling for a return to feudalism.

The king up and decides to ban all forms of speech they don't like on their property on penalty of exile.
Is this censorship?

No, ur wrong, it's his property and blah blah blah.

Nah dude, it's censorship. Thinking otherwise means you have to buy into the fundamental and flawed conceits capitalism peddles;

That corporate power is separate and distinct from government power, that it should not be subject to the same rules and treatment, that corporations do not require representatives and workplace democracy instead of government by dictat of the ceos, that it is a separate thing from government and should be viewed separately and subject to different expectations and rules.

By buying into this "It's not censorship" thing, you are essentially going against everything market socialism stands for and the principles it is built on, that the capitalist is comparable to the monarch, that leadership requires representation to be valid, that power structures in and of themselves are comparable and so on.

The power structure here is not subject to collective will and representation. That is a bad thing, not a reason to excuse its excesses and abuses as not counting, those excesses and abuses are in fact a symptom of that fundamental problem and recognizing them and how they are undesirable is vital to convincing the public to turn against them and demand they submit to the public will.

This is legitimately a great post.

Thanks dude.

(Image)

That doesn't actually change anything, Alex Jones being a fuck doesn't excuse the fuckery of others.

It's worth noting that nobody in this thread, as far as I can tell, has disputed the notion of Alex Jones being a fuck.

[Sick Jumps]

Mark Zuckerberg attempts to read Alex Jones' mind, bringing more hilarity to the debate: https://www.businessinsider.com/faceboo ... nes-2018-8

Mark Zuckerberg reportedly suspects that infamous Infowars founder Alex Jones wanted to get banned from Facebook all along, for the attention it would give him.

According to Jones, the World revolves around him. According to Zuckerberg, the World revolves around him. According to reality, the World still revolves around its axis.

According to a new report from The New York Times published Friday, citing anonymous sources, the Facebook CEO mulled over whether the faux-newsman "was purposefully trying to get kicked off the platform to gain attention" before finally pulling the trigger after Apple moved first and booted the Infowars podcasts from its iTunes directory. In other words, Zuckerberg thought Jones might believe the positives of getting banned from Facebook would outweigh the negatives, before the CEO ultimately bowed to public pressure and banned him anyway.

The "privileges" of getting banned from Facebook. Banned. Privileges. Now that Zuckerberg has humiliated himself, CNN will follow suit. Same article.

The recent moves to eject Alex Jones suggests a potential sea change in tech firms' approach to policing their platforms and their view of their responsibilities. That said, Twitter, unlike most other major social networks, has refused to crack down on Jones, insisting he doesn't violate its rules — though a recent analysis from CNN suggests otherwise.

CNN conducted an analysis of Alex Jones' tweets. Analysis. Of Tweets. By Alex Jones. Frankly, CNN, I'm not surprised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkeGDmXHbo

I expected some entertainment, but this is high quality shit. If only a reality show host was president...

It does feed into Jones' victimhood/oppression complex. When your shtick is that the globalists are out to get you, and then a giant company bans you from their platform, that plays nicely to the base. In the long term, I'm not sure if the short-term boost in exposure will outweigh the impact of being banned. We'll see, I guess.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... ex%20Jones

Google Trends shows a nice spike in searches for "Infowars" and "Alex Jones".

[Saiwania]

How did Alex Jones last for so long before all this? I'm only suspicious about him being removed from all of these platforms simultaneously. Otherwise, yeah- I can see that he's made a lot of enemies.

[Sick Jumps]

How did Alex Jones last for so long before all this? I'm only suspicious about him being removed from all of these platforms simultaneously. Otherwise, yeah- I can see that he's made a lot of enemies.

I don't think Facebook/Google/et al. care so much that Alex was using their platform.

The real problem, from their point of view, is the negative press and attention that Alex Jones attracts. Social media/internet companies want to create the impression that they are taking action to police their platforms. They don't want their brands to be seen as corrosive/toxic to social discourse or a harbor for extremist views.

Advertisers (the source of the bulk of Facebook/Google's revenue) have similar motivations. They don't want their logo next to things like pro-ISIS or white nationalist videos. This has been going on for a while, but it really started picking up steam with the advertiser boycott of YouTube back in 2017.

[North Calaveras]

How did Alex Jones last for so long before all this? I'm only suspicious about him being removed from all of these platforms simultaneously. Otherwise, yeah- I can see that he's made a lot of enemies.

I don't think Facebook/Google/et al. care so much that Alex was using their platform.

The real problem, from their point of view, is the negative press and attention that Alex Jones attracts. Social media/internet companies want to create the impression that they are taking action to police their platforms. They don't want their brands to be seen as corrosive/toxic to social discourse or a harbor for extremist views.

Advertisers (the source of the bulk of Facebook/Google's revenue) have similar motivations. They don't want their logo next to things like pro-ISIS or white nationalist videos. This has been going on for a while, but it really started picking up steam with the advertiser boycott of YouTube back in 2017.

the problem is that there are tons of anti-white etc etc videos and video makers whom are scott-free.