Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Honcho

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

Recommended Posts

 

Ever heard of Michael Moore?

 

He put out an award winning and highly regarded by the left movie claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Alex Jones is the right wing version of Michael Moore. A nut who plays his shtick to make money.

And which president came out and Praised him? See how this works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just going to step back and watch the fireworks.

 

This is bad, very bad

 

He's the Canary in the Coal Mine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet and the media have a large portion of this country, the ignorant and confused, that there is an epidemic of police shooting and killing unarmed black men. There isn't. As a matter of fact, there isn't a shred of evidence to even hint at it.

I'd say the amount of cops getting killed increased dramatically thanks to the CNN's and MSNBCs inciting violence against officers with their intentional misleading and edited coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the amount of cops getting killed increased dramatically thanks to the CNN's and MSNBCs inciting violence against officers with their intentional misleading and edited coverage.

The five in Dallas and Liu and Ramos in NYC were without a doubt media and Obama fueled from the fake narrative allowed to be put forth from Ferguson. Obama was disgraceful during that time, and history will not be kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The five in Dallas and Liu and Ramos in NYC were without a doubt media and Obama fueled from the fake narrative allowed to be put forth from Ferguson. Obama was disgraceful during that time, and history will not be kind.

sure were....

The media outlets intentionally put out edited videos and misleading accounts of what happened with officer shootings many times.

You have to wonder why ? And shouldn't these so called news agencies be held to a higher standard than that loon Jones ?

These propagandists are on TV's in public places all the time.

Mike bozo honcho and his ilk will defend and deflect from their actions, because they buy into the narrative and they know these hack fake news networks are on their team.

 

All of them are scumb, pure filth including their dear leader Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of hoaxes, 99% of the MSM promotes a Russian collusion hoax on a daily basis.

 

Haven't heard about any of the social media outlets banning them.

Bolded is false.

They report on the news of the current investigation and on idiotic tweets made by POTUS which...are focking actual news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids? It really isn't about who is more odious. The question and the issue is pretty simple here. CNN has their own Pulpit from wants to spew there BLM race bathing nonsense.

 

But when you look at Alex Jones and Infowars and his ilk constantly getting sued over and over and over again, you have to remember that place is like Twitter and YouTube and all the other social media sites are the modern-day equivalent of publishing houses.

 

As a result, these private businesses must constantly weigh the risk of being sued civilly as their clients are. Certainly, attorneys for Sandy Hook and others will go for the deep pocket. That's just common sense.

 

Which isn't so much a moral issue as it is a civil action cover your butt issue. You can be sure that all of these sites looked with great interest and concern and that lunatic who shot up the pizza parlor.

 

If Don Lemon called for the assassination of some right-wing hate Monger, then CNN would get sued and their parent company would get sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure were....

The media outlets intentionally put out edited videos and misleading accounts of what happened with officer shootings many times.

You have to wonder why ? And shouldn't these so called news agencies be held to a higher standard than that loon Jones ?

These propagandists are on TV's in public places all the time.

Mike bozo honcho and his ilk will defend and deflect from their actions, because they buy into the narrative and they know these hack fake news networks are on their team.

 

All of them are scumb, pure filth including their dear leader Obama.

 

You are both idiots for saying this...just absolutely dumb.

Especially given the rhetoric coming out of the right and your cult leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Matter of balance/equal treatment, are there examples of other groups on those platforms who aren't following the TOS, promoting violence, ignoring account suspensions? I''ll agree with you if that's the case, but if others are following the rules, then isn't it unequal to them that Jones wasn't?

Violence like Antifa, the thug branch of the left's resist movement?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike. That lawsuit isnt over, it was dismissed at the lower courts, it is still on going

 

as far as COC

 

for example they have restricted Crowder's videos for cussing

 

yet I can find you 100's of rap videos saying much worse

 

On Prager the decision was given in March, and as of yet no word of an appeal, though the judge seemed to agree that the 21th century deserves to take a new look at Free Speech. IMO, based on the findings in the trial, I don't see where he can claim he was denied access on someone else's platform. Like me complaining that I was denied access to your refrigerator.

 

Judge Koh gave Prager a chance to amend its lawsuit, and said the case “demands an analysis” of California’s state constitution “in the age of social media and the internet.”

Peter Obstler, a lawyer for Prager, said his client will review its legal options, including a possible appeal.

 

 

I only found this example of Crowder being banned on Twitter, and it wasn't for swearing, it was for violating the rules against hateful conduct(pretty broad, I grant you, but again it's their platform). Apparently Twitter takes a dim view of sending someone undercover into a LGBTQ meeting saying they gender identify as a computer.

 

First off I'm not against free speech or hilarity, but when a guy like Crowder crosses the line, grabs a bull horn and starts screaming "look at me, I crossed the line" he's going to get a reaction. And I'm guessing he loves it, 'look the big companies are censoring me...it's cause I'm conservative..."

 

Anyway, I'm out until I can find another 10 minutes of nothing time in the office. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the audience for this Alex Jones POS are the same dingbats who think QAnon is real. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the audience for this Alex Jones POS are the same dingbats who think QAnon is real. lol

 

Considering the topic and the discussion that has taken place here, this take is painfully stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering the topic and the discussion that has taken place here, this take is painfully stupid.

I save my non stupid takes for offline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure were....

The media outlets intentionally put out edited videos and misleading accounts of what happened with officer shootings many times.

You have to wonder why ? And shouldn't these so called news agencies be held to a higher standard than that loon Jones ?

These propagandists are on TV's in public places all the time.

Mike bozo honcho and his ilk will defend and deflect from their actions, because they buy into the narrative and they know these hack fake news networks are on their team.

 

All of them are scumb, pure filth including their dear leader Obama.

 

Drobe-all those misleading accounts and statements made, they made on their own platform(right or wrong)---Alex Jones did his on someone elses, that's the difference. And why your argument has no weight in this discussion. Feel free to start your own thread on journalistic responsibility and public trust if you want to discuss those subjects, doesn't belong in a thread about social media and how they enforce their polices. HTH, but I doubt it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H3H3 Productions (One of the biggest youtube channels) had their live stream cut and a strike on their channel yesterday for talking about Alex Jones. Youtube ended up removing the strike, but the message is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H3H3 Productions (One of the biggest youtube channels) had their live stream cut and a strike on their channel yesterday for talking about Alex Jones. Youtube ended up removing the strike, but the message is clear.

 

The message that Youtube's algorithm for monitoring content, giving strikes and issuing suspension needs to be updated. Until better AI is developed, these issues will always arise.

 

Or we can just attribute it to the global conspiracy against conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The message that Youtube's algorithm for monitoring content, giving strikes and issuing suspension needs to be updated. Until better AI is developed, these issues will always arise.

 

Or we can just attribute it to the global conspiracy against conservatives.

 

There is enough evidence that shows these large tech companies are colluding to silence "wrong think"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is enough evidence that shows these large tech companies are colluding to silence "wrong think"

 

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.

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.

 

You are completely dismissing the basis for the algorithm. It's obviously targeting conservative thought. And the sites are only reinstated after complaints.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's BS. Nothing wrong with Mcinnis or the Proud Boys. The left can't take it when anyone rejects their philosophy.

They love to confuse people and say oh its the complicated algorithm and that works for people that dont understand simple programming. But a lot of this is simple If This Then That programming. Which basically means IF someone says Black people are ______ then ban. Theyve simply left out the IF White people are ______ then part. Its deliberate and isnt complicated at all.

 

Ive said it numerous times. Trump needs to pull a Roosevelt and break up these anti-trusts. Facebook, Google sorry, you gotta split up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think Alex Jones is an angry, unhinged, wing nut I do not agree with censoring him.

 

I suppose these companies have a right to do as they please, given they are private businesses. And I suppose if Alex Jones is serious about being heard he will find a way to create his own platform.

 

I don't know. Seems wrong on the surface but Apple, YouTube, and Facebook have to do what's best for their bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just bottom line...they dont want to be co-defendants in court when he ends up getting sued (like with Sandy Hook).

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.

do these algorithms build themselves ?

 

Dumbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bottom line

 

The Young Turks --- not demonitized

 

Prager University --- demontized

 

you put 100 normal people unbiased and not politically aligned in a room and have them watch 5 Prager videos and 5 TYT videos and see how that turns out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were YouTube Id have my lawyers draft up an ironclad user policy that exempts my company from any responsibility for user content and Id let anything short of calls to violence or other potential crimes stand, including Alex Jones.

 

I do have to laugh though at the party that says businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone getting worked into a lather over a POS wingnut like Alex Jones getting banned. This human garbage is who youre going to bat for? Get a better martyr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely dismissing the basis for the algorithm. It's obviously targeting conservative thought. And the sites are only reinstated after complaints.

 

One example has been provided, where during a live stream Alex Jones was mentioned. Youtube banned Alex Jones because while he was suspended from Live Streaming, he appeared on other channels live streaming. Of course a algorithm will see during a live stream the name alex jones and bring down a ban hammer under those conditions. Find better examples.

 

do these algorithms build themselves ?

 

Dumbo

 

 

 

The message that Youtube's algorithm for monitoring content, giving strikes and issuing suspension needs to be updated. Until better AI is developed, these issues will always arise.

 

Or we can just attribute it to the global conspiracy against conservatives.

 

Thanks Drobe for repeating what I've already said...and I see you have nothing in response to:

 

 

Drobe-all those misleading accounts and statements made, they made on their own platform(right or wrong)---Alex Jones did his on someone elses, that's the difference. And why your argument has no weight in this discussion. Feel free to start your own thread on journalistic responsibility and public trust if you want to discuss those subjects, doesn't belong in a thread about social media and how they enforce their polices. HTH, but I doubt it will.

 

You should quit, cause you are racking up a lot of losses here, going to mess with your overall W-L record. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were YouTube Id have my lawyers draft up an ironclad user policy that exempts my company from any responsibility for user content and Id let anything short of calls to violence or other potential crimes stand, including Alex Jones.

 

I do have to laugh though at the party that says businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone getting worked into a lather over a POS wingnut like Alex Jones getting banned. This human garbage is who youre going to bat for? Get a better martyr.

 

 

NPR

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.

 

Even by your lower standards, Jones would probably be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bottom line

 

The Young Turks --- not demonitized

 

Prager University --- demontized

 

you put 100 normal people unbiased and not politically aligned in a room and have them watch 5 Prager videos and 5 TYT videos and see how that turns out

 

The what? I don't think you could find 100 normal people who know what these two things are. Only wing nuts that live in moms basement lol. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

NPR

 

Even by your lower standards, Jones would probably be gone.

What constitutes hate speech and calls for violence is in a lot of cases hopelessly vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The what? I don't think you could find 100 normal people who know what these two things are. Only wing nuts that live in moms basement lol. :lol:

 

thats the point take 100 people who dont spend their time on low rent message boards and have them watch 5 videos of TYT and Prager and see which one should be monetized and which shouldn't

 

I would guess it would land about 90/10 in favor of Prager

 

put it this way

 

I even think Sho would think the Young Turks are garbage, and Prager is a good platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

thats the point take 100 people who dont spend their time on low rent message boards and have them watch 5 videos of TYT and Prager and see which one should be monetized and which shouldn't

 

I would guess it would land about 90/10 in favor of Prager

 

put it this way

 

I even think Sho would think the Young Turks are garbage, and Prager is a good platform

 

Wait, if they are on YouTube aren't they already monetized? I thought that was the whole idea behind YouTube, you get paid by how many views you get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes hate speech and calls for violence is in a lot of cases hopelessly vague.

 

Why I said probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait, if they are on YouTube aren't they already monetized? I thought that was the whole idea behind YouTube, you get paid by how many views you get?

 

nope, thats what the whole discussion is, YouTube decides who to monetize and what adds they can run

 

Prager's videos for example get 5-10 mil plays each, no monetization

 

how to do a tranny makeup lesson 50k views, monetized

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were YouTube Id have my lawyers draft up an ironclad user policy that exempts my company from any responsibility for user content and Id let anything short of calls to violence or other potential crimes stand, including Alex Jones.

 

I do have to laugh though at the party that says businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone getting worked into a lather over a POS wingnut like Alex Jones getting banned. This human garbage is who youre going to bat for? Get a better martyr.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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

 

 

hes fricking hilarious

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why I said probably.

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.

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

 

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

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  

×