Facebook suspends InfoWars

[Liriena]

Yes, even after you report anti-white or anti-male stuff, it rarely gets taken down.

So just like much of the nazi content on the same platform?

[Sick Jumps]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

Twitter operates by the same logic Reddit does: maintaining ad revenue is more important than enforcing its own ToS.

I actually prefer their stance. They were right to resist calls to ban Trump from Twitter, and I think they're right here as well.

I do also think that Facebook and Google have the right to run their platforms as they wish.

[Ifreann]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

Twitter operates by the same logic Reddit does: maintaining ad revenue is more important than enforcing its own ToS.

Me in 2014:

Well you see, Twitter is a business. A for profit enterprise. And you might think that this means that they'll do their best to guarantee a pleasant tweeting experience for all their users. But that would mean banning whole swathes of absolutely horrible people. They'd end up with a much better service, but a much smaller one, and that means less profit, because they make their money from advertising.

So the people in charge tell the Twitter staff to keep the kid gloves on, to favour temporary suspensions over outright bans, to keep the racists and sexists and homophobes and every kind of troll and criminal around. After all, if Criado-Perez were to leave Twitter, that's one person they can't advertise to. But if the people threatening to rape and murder her were all banned, well that would be 80 people they can't advertise to. Do the maths. Twitter did.

Criado-Perez is Caroline Criado-Perez, who was the subject of a harassment campaign because she campaigned to get a woman on a British banknote

[Puldania]

I didn't realize InfoWars was actually dangerous.

I only knew of it from memes.

[Vassenor]

I didn't realize InfoWars was actually dangerous.

I only knew of it from memes.

Inciting harassment against bereaved families to the point where they have to be put into witness protection for their own safety?

Some memes.

[Puldania]

I didn't realize InfoWars was actually dangerous.

I only knew of it from memes.

Inciting harassment against bereaved families to the point where they have to be put into witness protection for their own safety?

Some memes.

I didn't know about these things. I assumed it was a weird yet harmless conspiracy theory show.

Good Riddance.

[Outer Sparta]

I didn't realize InfoWars was actually dangerous.

I only knew of it from memes.

Like the gay frogs? Anyway, I'm glad they're ousted from Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, but Twitter still has them online.

[Des-Bal]

Inciting harassment against bereaved families to the point where they have to be put into witness protection for their own safety?

Some memes.

Source for inciting harassment

[Outer Sparta]

Inciting harassment against bereaved families to the point where they have to be put into witness protection for their own safety?

Some memes.

Source for inciting harassment

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims to the point that one had to move multiple times to avoid more harassment.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Source for inciting harassment

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims.

Peddling conspiracies isn't really inciting harassment.

[Sovaal]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims.

Peddling conspiracies isn't really inciting harassment.

But what if I told you the frogs where gay all along?

[Thanatttynia]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims.

Peddling conspiracies isn't really inciting harassment.

It is when the conspiracies centre on people who aren't public figures.

[Des-Bal]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims to the point that one had to move multiple times to avoid more harassment.

Insulting people and accusing them of lying is not inciting harassment.

It is when the conspiracies centre on people who aren't public figures.

No, it isn't.

[North Calaveras]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims to the point that one had to move multiple times to avoid more harassment.

Insulting people and accusing them of lying is not inciting harassment.

It is when the conspiracies centre on people who aren't public figures.

No, it isn't.

These leftists be like “ good hes gone, we dont need conspiracy theorists”

Meanwhile

“Trump is a nazi and secret is russian collaberator reeeeee”

[Outer Sparta]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html
He has repeatedly called Sandy Hook a hoax and insulted the parents of the child victims to the point that one had to move multiple times to avoid more harassment.

Insulting people and accusing them of lying is not inciting harassment.

It is when the conspiracies centre on people who aren't public figures.

No, it isn't.

How are they lying?

[Sovaal]

Insulting people and accusing them of lying is not inciting harassment.


No, it isn't.

How are they lying?

Pretty sure that's where the word "accusing" comes into play.

[Thanatttynia]

It is when the conspiracies centre on people who aren't public figures.

No, it isn't.

It is. If I used my massive platform of people who blindly believe whatever I say to state that whatever random person I wanted was part of a global conspiracy, I would be inciting harassment against them. Non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what's more they don't have the private security or platforms of their own to combat any invasion of that privacy.

These leftists be like “ good hes gone, we dont need conspiracy theorists”

Meanwhile

“Trump is a nazi and secret is russian collaberator reeeeee”

omg i cant believe that you would just destroy leftism like that

[North Calaveras]

No, it isn't.

It is. If I used my massive platform of people who blindly believe whatever I say to state that whatever random person I wanted was part of a global conspiracy, I would be inciting harassment against them. Non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what's more they don't have the private security or platforms of their own to combat any invasion of that privacy.

These leftists be like “ good hes gone, we dont need conspiracy theorists”

Meanwhile

“Trump is a nazi and secret is russian collaberator reeeeee”

omg i cant believe that you would just destroy leftism like that

I know im a monster

[Des-Bal]

It is. If I used my massive platform of people who blindly believe whatever I say to state that whatever random person I wanted was part of a global conspiracy, I would be inciting harassment against them. Non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what's more they don't have the private security or platforms of their own to combat any invasion of that privacy.

No it's not. Accusing someone of something is not inciting harassment in anyway that matters. If Alex Jones was telling people follow them yelling obscenities that would be inciting harassment. What you're suggesting is that no person can be elevated to public notice, this is absurdity. There is no individual right to privacy so broad that it allows you to prevent people from talking about you.

[Thanatttynia]

It is. If I used my massive platform of people who blindly believe whatever I say to state that whatever random person I wanted was part of a global conspiracy, I would be inciting harassment against them. Non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what's more they don't have the private security or platforms of their own to combat any invasion of that privacy.

No it's not. Accusing someone of something is not inciting harassment in anyway that matters. If Alex Jones was telling people follow them yelling obscenities that would be inciting harassment. What you're suggesting is that no person can be elevated to public notice, this is absurdity. There is no individual right to privacy so broad that it allows you to prevent people from talking about you.

That's an example of explicit incitement to harassment, what I'm talking about is implicit. It's the same difference between telling people to kill a particular group of people and telling people that a particular group of people wants to kill them. The former is explicit, the latter implicit, but they're both inciting violence. Jones isn't stupid, he knows full well what many of his supporters are like and how they behave. He knows exactly what to say in order to provoke a strong reaction in them, he's very good at what he does.

Of course there is no right to privacy that prevents people talking about you, but as far as I'm concerned non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that it's impeded when influential radio hosts start implicating them in a global conspiracy and accusing them of being crisis actors to their millions of conspiracy groupies who believe whatever they say. What recourse do these families have in this situation if it's not harassment?

[Des-Bal]

That's an example of explicit incitement to harassment, what I'm talking about is implicit. It's the same difference between telling people to kill a particular group of people and telling people that a particular group of people wants to kill them. The former is explicit, the latter implicit, but they're both inciting violence. Jones isn't stupid, he knows full well what many of his supporters are like and how they behave. He knows exactly what to say in order to provoke a strong reaction in them, he's very good at what he does.

Of course there is no right to privacy that prevents people talking about you, but as far as I'm concerned non-public figures have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that it's impeded when influential radio hosts start implicating them in a global conspiracy and accusing them of being crisis actors to their millions of conspiracy groupies who believe whatever they say. What recourse do these families have in this situation if it's not harassment?

They are absolutely not the same, a call to harassment is a serious thing. What you'e talking about is simply commenting on a person with disapproval and I reject the notion that you can't disapprove of someone.

Well you know they could try suing for defamation.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

So Jack Dorsey supports the Alt Right. Great.

[Des-Bal]

So Jack Dorsey supports the Alt Right. Great.

Yeah fuck Voltaire.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Twitter says InfoWars account will remain online despite violating its rules

So Jack Dorsey supports the Alt Right. Great.

Please review recent history and see if your comment makes the slightest bit of sense.

Spoiler: it doesn't

[Soviet-mongol]

Alex Jones is indirectly responsible for Eliot Rogers and this Armenian guy from Canada