Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Honcho

YouTube, Apple and Facebook remove content from InfoWars and Alex Jones

Recommended Posts

Why I said YouTube would have been wise to stay out of the business of making these kinds of judgment calls in the first place.

 

YT is a business, based on getting people to view commercialized pay-to-view content on their site. They made the business/judgement call to not allow porn because it would mean parents wouldn't let their children view the site meaning less views. The judgement calls against glorify violence and hate aren't even really judgement calls, it's illegal to incite violence, if they don't ban people who are doing that, they are going to be held responsible too. Wacko kills pizzamaker because Alex Jones says the guy is running a pedophile ring out of his basement on his YT channel, Mrs. Pizzamaker is going to come after YT pretty hard for allowing that. YT's rules are more in place to protect themselves for liability more-so than because they want a place where we can all come together and sing in perfect harmony.

 

 

You're right that Alex Jones is a POS not worth defending. Cant disagree other than to say the only legitimate reason to defend him is for fear of a slippery slope.

 

Which seems to be the case.

 

So, now according to our FFToday sources, they're targeting McInnis too. Who is McInnis? I dunno, the first I ever heard of him was what I read twenty posts up ten minutes and I have not left this thread to find out more since reading that but ... well... if you don't say anything when Alex Jones goes.... then they sack McInnis and another and another... you eventually start getting more and more legitimate and less and less extreme. For all I know, McInnis is legitimate (or not for that matter).

 

So, circling back, maybe folks should hold their nose and consider standing up for Alex Jones as a defensive action before they start clamping down on legitimate vloggers.

 

Was it a slippery slope when Mike gave GiantsFan or RP the ban hammer, or was it him saying this is my place, I invited you here and there are a few simple rules you have to follow?

 

Again to Alex Jones, whatever clicks,viewership and revenue he brought to YT clearly in their opinion wasn't worth the risk anymore(in today's climate) to allow his speech anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is funny but very sexist. Which being the kind of guy I am, I like it. But I also have enough common sense to realize that there are women who do choose a non traditional life. They do choose a career and money over family and kids. I also don't think the women who choose this are pretending.

 

But yeah, he is focking funny. :D

 

yes we know there are some women who prefer it, but hes right, that the majority do not, and the majority would probably if they had kids gladly give it up for the family

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YT is a business, based on getting people to view commercialized pay-to-view content on their site. They made the business/judgement call to not allow porn because it would mean parents wouldn't let their children view the site meaning less views. The judgement calls against glorify violence and hate aren't even really judgement calls, it's illegal to incite violence, if they don't ban people who are doing that, they are going to be held responsible too. Wacko kills pizzamaker because Alex Jones says the guy is running a pedophile ring out of his basement on his YT channel, Mrs. Pizzamaker is going to come after YT pretty hard for allowing that. YT's rules are more in place to protect themselves for liability more-so than because they want a place where we can all come together and sing in perfect harmony.

I understand what youre saying but I think Alex Jones falls into enough of a gray area that YT may have created more legal issues for itself than they resolved by banning him.

 

To my knowledge AJ didnt call for violence or harassment against Mr. Pizzamaker or the Sandy Hook parents. He arguably inspired violence or harassment but thats a much lower threshold and harder to prove. He also wasnt the only person to float the pizzagate and Sandy Hook theories.

 

Im guessing you could make an argument that a lot of content on YouTube inspires criminal activity if thats the standard. If I were YT I would much rather not have to start making that judgment call. Their liability as a media platform is probably pretty low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what youre saying but I think Alex Jones falls into enough of a gray area that YT may have created more legal issues for itself than they resolved by banning him.

 

To my knowledge AJ didnt call for violence or harassment against Mr. Pizzamaker or the Sandy Hook parents. He arguably inspired violence or harassment but thats a much lower threshold and harder to prove. He also wasnt the only person to float the pizzagate and Sandy Hook theories.

 

Im guessing you could make an argument that a lot of content on YouTube inspires criminal activity if thats the standard. If I were YT I would much rather not have to start making that judgment call. Their liability as a media platform is probably pretty low.

 

In the violence area, he may be in a legally gray area, as this shows(CNN).

 

In one video posted on Twitter, Jones played a clip of the "Drag Tots," an animated show, and drag queens with children. Jones referred to the drag queens as "soul sucked fallen slaves" and suggested they should burn in Hell. Jones accused the drag queens of introducing children to "Satanism" and "satanic rituals."

"We're going to destroy you," Jones said of the drag queens.

 

 

 

But how many times do you want someone playing in the gray areas where you could be found even minimally liable. And this one isn't really that gray.

 

(NYT) Last week, YouTube removed four of Mr. Jones’s videos for violating its child endangerment and hate speech standards and barred him from live-streaming on the site for 90 days, though his channel remains a main source for his broadcasts.

 

The videos removed included one called “Prevent Liberalism,” in which a man chokes a child and throws him to the ground.

 

(look forward to the people who posted that Colbert isn't funny, tell me that this was just a joke).

 

 

Also YT has to consider defamation speech too, as another place they don't want any part of. His rants against the parents of Sandy Hook have forced one family to move 5 times and he's being sued for defamation. Another example NYT:

 

The filing — an amicus, or friend of the court, brief — was submitted in June in the case of Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department official and Democratic Party activist who attended last summer’s violent far-right rally in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Gilmore, 39, was on the street on Aug. 12 when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of protesters, killing a woman, Heather Heyer, and injuring several others.

 

After Mr. Gilmore posted a video of the episode online and spoke about it repeatedly to the media, Mr. Jones published his own video on Infowars, accusing him in a rambling jeremiad of being a plant from the Central Intelligence Agency employed by the billionaire George Soros.

 

In a breathless moment (“I mean, it’s like, whoa, whoa — C.I.A.?”), Mr. Jones went on to suggest that Mr. Gilmore may have been involved in the attack on Ms. Heyer to bring about what he described as “the downfall of Trump.”

 

In March, Mr. Gilmore sued Mr. Jones for defamation, arguing that he had suffered threats and harassment because of the report.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer(just play one at the GC), but if someone does something illegal on my platform I've got to be concerned about liability(and Google/YT have a lot of money=big target). I doubt that YT had created more legal issues for themselves, as there isn't any right to have a YT channel, heck they could change their TOS tomorrow to say we will only support liberal viewpoints---but again that wouldn't be a reasonable business decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NYT The Pozner family’s story is recounted in the court filings: In 2015, after Mr. Pozner succeeded in having an Infowars video taken down from Mr. Jones’s YouTube channel, “Mr. Jones went on an angry rant about me for nearly an hour,” Mr. Pozner said in an affidavit. Mr. Jones “also hosted a call with an obsessed fellow conspiracy theorist who issued a threat to me.”

 

“Mr. Jones then showed his audience my personal information and maps to addresses associated with my family,” the affidavit says.

Lucy Richards, an Infowars devotee, was arrested the next year for repeatedly threatening Mr. Pozner’s life. She was sentenced to five months in prison last year. As a condition of parole, a judge ordered that she cease consuming Infowars programming, the court documents state.

 

“This type of misinformation is a bit of a societal crisis,” Ms. De La Rosa said. “This isn’t someone on a soapbox in Times Square spewing nonsense. It’s someone who every day generates income from his demonstrably false utterances.”

 

 

Yeah, my question isn't that does YT have to right to take down his channel, but why did they wait so long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

McInnis is one of us, not extreme, but not afraid to call it like it is

 

 

 

hes fricking hilarious

:lol:

I've got the screen frozen at 2:21. She's giving the same "this is the most incredible, dumbest thing I've ever heard" gaze that Tucker Carlson has perfected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So given the choice between conspiracy or an algorithm incorrectly flagging content, that when reviewed was immediately corrected you choose conspiracy. You want to provide your evidence of tech companies colluding to silence "wrong think", go ahead, but this example is the exact opposite of that.

 

That is not, what I said at all. In fact there are more than two choices. The algorithm didn't incorrectly flag anything. It did exactly what it was programmed to do. When you search google or twitter and get results that don't even come close to what every other search engine shows something is very very wrong. The most famous example is when you searched "Hilary is a..." Every other search engine suggested "crook" or "criminal" but google suggested "president" or "excellent leader" the designed the system to only show positive suggestions and news about Hillary and Negitive news and suggestions about Trump. Do YOU think this is okay?

 

Twitter has been caught shadow banning Conservative politicians too. John James forone example. Diamond and silk, etc... When looking up the Ohio run off twitter only showed the Democrat nominee. Do YOU think this is okay?

 

You apparently think these and thousands of other incidents are just algorithm screw ups. Algorithms aren't humans they are computer programs that run exactly like the engineer designed them to, the computer doesn't make mistakes.

 

That is what I mean when the tech giants are trying to stop wrong think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be a battle right now between L and R taking pieces off the board.

 

L takes Bill O'reilly, R takes Al Franken

 

L takes Roseanne, R takes Gunn

 

L takes Alex Jones, R takes?

 

 

Cenk, Maher, Scarborough?

 

I am going to put my money on Maher. He hates Muslims, throws around the N word live on TV, and likely has a closet full of #metoo victims.

Well well well.

 

Looks like I was right.

 

The autists have been digging in on Maher.

 

Already found a connection between him and a pedo themed movie and tweets comparing Michelle bachman to planet of the apes.

 

Let's see if he gets any criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple, Google, Microsoft are setting themselves up for a nice anti-trust lawsuit from DOJ just like Microsoft faced 20 years ago. They have banned apps from the marketplace to prevent competition (under the guise of hate speech) behaving like a monopoly. See gab.

 

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are begging to be regulated if they keep censoring people based on political ideology under the false accusation of hate speech.

 

Should be some interesting times ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

:lol:

Also Breitbart citing Pundit withhkm dressed as a Proest with of age girls looking like young girls. :lol:

As if the dirty priest with a young kid wasnt a gag costume all over the place.

Was it dumb for Gunn...sure, portraying it as he is actually apedo... yeah, weak as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is not, what I said at all. In fact there are more than two choices. The algorithm didn't incorrectly flag anything. It did exactly what it was programmed to do.

 

Then what "clear" message was YT sending then? And in this case it did flag incorrectly, while Alex Jones channel was removed for breaking the terms of his suspension by appearing on other channels live streaming during his 90 day TO, it's flagged a show live streaming with content discussing the Alex Jones removal.

 

 

 

When you search google or twitter and get results that don't even come close to what every other search engine shows something is very very wrong. The most famous example is when you searched "Hilary is a..." Every other search engine suggested "crook" or "criminal" but google suggested "president" or "excellent leader" the designed the system to only show positive suggestions and news about Hillary and Negitive news and suggestions about Trump. Do YOU think this is okay?

 

 

 

 

From Snopes

 

However, that does not mean that Google is manipulating search results in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate. Google’s autocomplete function uses a variety of factors, including the popularity of a search term, to determine results. Furthermore, Google has also said in statements that its autocomplete does not provide offensive or disparaging results when partnered with a person’s name:

 

Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.

 

While it’s true that Google Autocomplete will not show “Hillary Clinton Criminal” when searching for “Hillary Clinton Cri,” we couldn’t get Google Autocomplete to label anyone a criminal. When we searched for the names of various criminals along with the prefix “cri,” we received results for “cricket,” “criminology,” “crisis communication,” and in the case of recently convicted swimmer Brock Turner, no results(with criminal):

 

Google’s search results also differ than Bing and Yahoo’s when searching for disparaging remarks against other political candidates, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. For instance, when searching for “Bernie Sanders Com” on Google, you’ll get results for “Bernie Sanders commercial,” while Bing and Yahoo provide results related to communism. “Donald Trump sex” resulted in results about sexist remarks and sex scandals on Bing and Yahoo, while Google returned “Donald Trump Sex And The City”:

 

 

 

So that was a whole lot of nothing.

 

 

 

Twitter has been caught shadow banning Conservative politicians too. John James forone example. Diamond and silk, etc... When looking up the Ohio run off twitter only showed the Democrat nominee. Do YOU think this is okay?

 

You apparently think these and thousands of other incidents are just algorithm screw ups. Algorithms aren't humans they are computer programs that run exactly like the engineer designed them to, the computer doesn't make mistakes.

 

That is what I mean when the tech giants are trying to stop wrong think.

 

 

Don't know about those examples or the thousands of others hypothetical cases, can't address them, did they break the TOS like Alex Jones did? Jones isn't even off Twitter, they said he had not broken their TOS.

 

And computers certainly do make mistakes in analyzing and interpreting human speech/writing and content, it's the B8 problem. It's why your first example got a incorrect suspension. Look, you may have a point about tech companies favoring "right think", but at this point you haven't shown me anything that proves that. And my conclusion on the original issue of Jones is still the same, he repeatedly broke the TOS with those companies with his slanderous, inflammatory and derogatory statements and it was a simple bean counter business decision; the clicks and revenue he brought in wasn't worth the potential liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the violence area, he may be in a legally gray area, as this shows(CNN).

 

 

But how many times do you want someone playing in the gray areas where you could be found even minimally liable. And this one isn't really that gray.

(look forward to the people who posted that Colbert isn't funny, tell me that this was just a joke).

 

 

Also YT has to consider defamation speech too, as another place they don't want any part of. His rants against the parents of Sandy Hook have forced one family to move 5 times and he's being sued for defamation. Another example NYT:

 

I'm not a lawyer(just play one at the GC), but if someone does something illegal on my platform I've got to be concerned about liability(and Google/YT have a lot of money=big target). I doubt that YT had created more legal issues for themselves, as there isn't any right to have a YT channel, heck they could change their TOS tomorrow to say we will only support liberal viewpoints---but again that wouldn't be a reasonable business decision.

I knew most of this stuff. Im saying AJ doesnt seem to have committed a crime or at least he wasnt charged. YT isnt banning AJ because theyre worried about being held liable for his content - Im not a lawyer either but I cant inagine YT is any more liable for providing a platform to Jones than his ISP. Theyre banning him in a pure public relations move.

 

Thats YTs right and they dont have a legal obligation to let AJ use the site. Id say they do have an obligation to apply their rules fairly across the board though.

 

I dont agree with everything in this article but I think it makes some valid points:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/alex-jones-we-want-authorities-to-make-tough-decisions-for-us/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are concerned about violence, when does all the disgusting rap catch a ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCC shuts down Alex Jones radio show.

 

https://fox17.com/news/entertainment/fcc-shuts-down-alex-jones-pirate-flagship-radio-station

 

Lefties you guys are actually okay with this?

 

Crap!!!.....must just pertain to public radio, It's still available on Talk Stream Live and most likely his websites.

 

The Globalists are close to making a GIGANTIC move! :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are setting up Alex Jones for a future False Flag to blame conservatives, Libertarians, Trump to sway the upcoming elections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCC shuts down Alex Jones radio show.

 

https://fox17.com/news/entertainment/fcc-shuts-down-alex-jones-pirate-flagship-radio-station

 

Lefties you guys are actually okay with this?

Why are you asking if "lefties" are ok with it? Ask fellow Trump supporters or conservatives since it was a Trump appointee who shut him down. Non other then Ajit Pai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCC shuts down Alex Jones radio show.

 

https://fox17.com/news/entertainment/fcc-shuts-down-alex-jones-pirate-flagship-radio-station

 

Lefties you guys are actually okay with this?

It seems that when it rains, it pours.

 

I don't give a d@mn about Alex Jones per se. He's awful. I just worry that he's the canary in the coal mine and the first on a slippery slope. Liberals love painting those they disagree with as racists and homophobes and conspiracy mongers and whatnot. Although here, they flushed a real turd so I can't/won't cry for him, it also opens a can of worms they can go back to again-and-again.

 

So I'm on high alert. Other right wing contributors besides him, good one providing quality content are also getting the tarred-and-feathers treatment with false accusations who are on the path to having this happen to them... getting de-monetized and shadow banned, etc. Doing this to Alex Jones is not a good sign for them because I don't know and don't trust where the flaming liberals who are doing this censoring will draw the line.

 

Also, maybe this is the wrong post to quote as it's the FCC not youtube/facebook etc doing this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here:

 

You can't be upset at AJ being removed form a private companies platform and OK with things like the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple. These are private companies that can set their own rules. Even if Facebook came out and said that anyone who promotes a republican is perma-banned, it's their right.

 

Secondly, for those complaining about AJ's freedom of speech... I've got a buddy who is a dietician, he posted on AJs facebook asking about how his supplements work. Whoever moderates that FB page deleted the comment. Did they infringe on my buddies freedom of speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here:

 

You can't be upset at AJ being removed form a private companies platform and OK with things like the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple. These are private companies that can set their own rules. Even if Facebook came out and said that anyone who promotes a republican is perma-banned, it's their right.

 

Secondly, for those complaining about AJ's freedom of speech... I've got a buddy who is a dietician, he posted on AJs facebook asking about how his supplements work. Whoever moderates that FB page deleted the comment. Did they infringe on my buddies freedom of speech?

This :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then what "clear" message was YT sending then? And in this case it did flag incorrectly, while Alex Jones channel was removed for breaking the terms of his suspension by appearing on other channels live streaming during his 90 day TO, it's flagged a show live streaming with content discussing the Alex Jones removal.

 

 

 

 

So that was a whole lot of nothing.

 

 

 

Don't know about those examples or the thousands of others hypothetical cases, can't address them, did they break the TOS like Alex Jones did? Jones isn't even off Twitter, they said he had not broken their TOS.

 

And computers certainly do make mistakes in analyzing and interpreting human speech/writing and content, it's the B8 problem. It's why your first example got a incorrect suspension. Look, you may have a point about tech companies favoring "right think", but at this point you haven't shown me anything that proves that. And my conclusion on the original issue of Jones is still the same, he repeatedly broke the TOS with those companies with his slanderous, inflammatory and derogatory statements and it was a simple bean counter business decision; the clicks and revenue he brought in wasn't worth the potential liability.

The message is conservative speech is not allowed. It's especially obvious when these same sites allow antiafa, isis, threats against the white race and man hating subs and other accounts to stay active.

 

As I said computers do not make mistakes. You keep using that word and it's 100% incorrect. Computers function excatly like their programs code them to function. If the programer is a liberal doush who hates conservatives well there you go. There's plenty of videos of Google and Twitter engineers admitting to Shadow banning and trying to limit if not totally silence conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here:

 

You can't be upset at AJ being removed form a private companies platform and OK with things like the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple. These are private companies that can set their own rules. Even if Facebook came out and said that anyone who promotes a republican is perma-banned, it's their right.

 

Secondly, for those complaining about AJ's freedom of speech... I've got a buddy who is a dietician, he posted on AJs facebook asking about how his supplements work. Whoever moderates that FB page deleted the comment. Did they infringe on my buddies freedom of speech?

you can flip that argument around. You get that...right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can flip that argument around. You get that...right ?

 

They just don't get it. Completely 100% over their heads.

 

What if the right was in control of social media and they banned people who had pro-abortion pages? I would be against that. It works both ways for me, they just don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here:

 

You can't be upset at AJ being removed form a private companies platform and OK with things like the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple. These are private companies that can set their own rules. Even if Facebook came out and said that anyone who promotes a republican is perma-banned, it's their right.

 

Secondly, for those complaining about AJ's freedom of speech... I've got a buddy who is a dietician, he posted on AJs facebook asking about how his supplements work. Whoever moderates that FB page deleted the comment. Did they infringe on my buddies freedom of speech?

Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. The baker is...

 

Just saying it's pretty bad when the base of your argument is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. The baker is...

 

Just saying it's pretty bad when the base of your argument is wrong.

What??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are public companies

You can buy stock in them

You cant buy cake guy stock

HTH

 

:first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are public companies

You can buy stock in them

You cant buy cake guy stock

HTH

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are public companies

You can buy stock in them

You cant buy cake guy stock

HTH

Sold publicly on the stock market means nothing. Twitters rules are still made by Jack Dorsey not the public. The public follows his rules or they're booted/don't use his product. Facebooks rules are made by Zuckerberg. Same thing.

 

They are still private companies but sold publicly. Not sure what his point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are setting up Alex Jones for a future False Flag to blame conservatives, Libertarians, Trump to sway the upcoming elections.

Yep.

 

Muh Neo Nazis failed (nobody gives a ######, nobody believes that the KKK/Nazis are thriving)

 

Muh Russia failed (Mueller indicted a bunch of Russian twitter trolls and Manafort who is about to be acquitted)

 

Muh Stormy failed (nobody gives a ###### if Trump banged a dozen Playmates and strippers)

 

 

All they have left to scare people with is Muh Attacks on the Press.

 

We are seeing it played out with the censorship of conservative content across all platforms (facebook, twitter, youtube, etc).

 

We are seeing it played out with idiots who think Brennan has a constitutional right to a security clearance.

 

They already attempted something a few weeks ago when "Q" suddenly was front page news. A gunman on his way to PA and a crazy ###### who wanted VIP access were both caught in time. USSS prevented anyone from bringing a Q sign or shirt into the PA rally. They were hoping to use a "Q conspiracy nut" to attack Acosta or one of the other puppets. (Acosta's theatrics at the Tampa rally were not organic)

 

We are seeing it played out with the coordinated mass attack today of 300+ newspapers bashing Trump and claiming he is wrong for accusing the press of coordinating their attacks :lol: you literally can't make this ###### up

 

 

Someone is likely to murder a journalist between now and end of October. They will be wearing a Q shirt and have several social media accounts that follow Q. The person will be some mentally ill person on the FBI watch list who has been taking meds for most of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

Muh Neo Nazis failed (nobody gives a ######, nobody believes that the KKK/Nazis are thriving)

 

Muh Russia failed (Mueller indicted a bunch of Russian twitter trolls and Manafort who is about to be acquitted)

 

Muh Stormy failed (nobody gives a ###### if Trump banged a dozen Playmates and strippers)

 

 

All they have left to scare people with is Muh Attacks on the Press.

 

We are seeing it played out with the censorship of conservative content across all platforms (facebook, twitter, youtube, etc).

 

We are seeing it played out with idiots who think Brennan has a constitutional right to a security clearance.

 

They already attempted something a few weeks ago when "Q" suddenly was front page news. A gunman on his way to PA and a crazy ###### who wanted VIP access were both caught in time. USSS prevented anyone from bringing a Q sign or shirt into the PA rally. They were hoping to use a "Q conspiracy nut" to attack Acosta or one of the other puppets. (Acosta's theatrics at the Tampa rally were not organic)

 

We are seeing it played out with the coordinated mass attack today of 300+ newspapers bashing Trump and claiming he is wrong for accusing the press of coordinating their attacks :lol: you literally can't make this ###### up

 

 

Someone is likely to murder a journalist between now and end of October. They will be wearing a Q shirt and have several social media accounts that follow Q. The person will be some mentally ill person on the FBI watch list who has been taking meds for most of his life.

 

:thumbsup: good to see somebody else on the same page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sold publicly on the stock market means nothing. Twitters rules are still made by Jack Dorsey not the public. The public follows his rules or they're booted/don't use his product. Facebooks rules are made by Zuckerberg. Same thing.

 

They are still private companies but sold publicly. Not sure what his point is?

The point is you're wrong in your post. Being sold on the market does mean something. When you're a public company you have more rules to follow and most importantly you are beholden to your share holders. Sure Dorsey can do what he wants in which case he can be fired the nobody can fire the baker.

 

There's a reason Elon was talking about taking his company private again (personally I think it was just to prop up the stock) but he has a point he only has to answer to himself.

 

Bottom line - calling FB and Twitter a private company that can do what ever they want is 100% wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first 20 mins of Crowder this week, watch it if you want to see some rationale thought and some lawyer speak, and the laws they have encountered. Also Owen Benjamin

 

 

oh yah and also a killer intro

 

Herbivore, you will like the first 1:30 or so, the cinematography of his shorts have gotten so insanely good

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look if Don Imus took the ban hammer, this piece of Alex Jones should get at least that.

 

Some of these parents who lost their 5 year old children at Sandy Hook ended up having to move multiple times because Jones would release their address and whip up his idiot followers into a frenzy to go harass grieving parents.

 

I don't really give a about yet another sissy slap fight. But like that? Should pretty much automatically earn you a bullet in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look if Don Imus took the ban hammer, this piece of ###### Alex Jones should get at least that.

 

Some of these parents who lost their 5 year old children at Sandy Hook ended up having to move multiple times because Jones would release their address and whip up his idiot followers into a frenzy to go harass grieving parents.

 

I don't really give a ###### about yet another sissy slap fight. But ###### like that? Should pretty much automatically earn you a bullet in the head.

Cr@p like this is why it's only a Slippery Slope Watch rather than a Slippery Slope Warning with me. If they are going to ban one guy, they picked the right one. It's not impossible to think they can close the can of worms. It's also not impossible to see them dropping non-offensive conservative bloggers that liberals find offensive anyway.

 

Since liberal fanatics throw the word "racist" or "fascist" so freely at anyone they disagree with and actually believe it's true, and since they don't care about free speech, they're liable to ban anyone and pat themselves on the back for doing the world some good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cr@p like this is why it's only a Slippery Slope Watch rather than a Slippery Slope Warning with me. If they are going to ban one guy, they picked the right one. It's not impossible to think they can close the can of worms. It's also not impossible to see them dropping non-offensive conservative bloggers that liberals find offensive anyway.

 

Since liberal fanatics throw the word "racist" or "fascist" so freely at anyone they disagree with and actually believe it's true, and since they don't care about free speech, they're liable to ban anyone and pat themselves on the back for doing the world some good.

 

Crowder is on their ban list, Shapiro I am sure is somewhere in the path. Then once they get all the conservatives gone, well Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan are the farthest right, so of course they are next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×