Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Honcho

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

Recommended Posts

 

YouTube, Facebook and Apple have taken steps to remove content associated with InfoWars and its founder Alex Jones.

 

Each social media platform said Monday that it had removed content from Jones or InfoWars because it had violated their policies. The companies' moves shut down key distribution channels that had given the controversial media figure easy access to millions of internet users.

 

The most dramatic action came last, from YouTube, which is owned by Google (GOOGL). It removed Jones' main channel, which had 2.4 million subscribers.

 

"When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts," said a spokesperson for YouTube.

 

 

 

Just going to step back and watch the fireworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love when lefties support censorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of this guy / channel but don't know what he looks like or ever seen it.

 

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "hate speech" they are referring to is very loosely labeled that. Being tough on immigration is now considered hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of this guy / channel but don't know what he looks like or ever seen it.

 

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "hate speech" they are referring to is very loosely labeled that. Being tough on immigration is now considered hate speech.

 

That's a reasonable assumption...a guy who promotes that Sandy Hook was a hoax, probably has sensible but tough immigration stances.

 

 

FB Statement

 

So what happened with InfoWars? They were up on Friday and now they are down?

As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages – Alex Jones – was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.

 

Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.

 

All four Pages have been unpublished for repeated violations of Community Standards and accumulating too many strikes. While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.

 

 

Haven't found examples yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collusion to keep someone from posting on main internet portals. Certainly frightening.

 

Why...you have to follow rules to post here, and this is the Siberia of the internet, why would it be different at other sites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why...you have to follow rules to post here, and this is the Siberia of the internet, why would it be different at other sites?

Youre a good comrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why...you have to follow rules to post here, and this is the Siberia of the internet, why would it be different at other sites?

3 giant sites ban a huge user on the same day? Would a reasonable person conclude that they may have discussed this among themselves and made an agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His site is also one of the major sources of anti-vaccination propaganda for HPV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy Hook hoax?

 

Anti-Vaxx er?

 

Ugh, sounds like a real dummy.

 

With that said, there are dummies all over the internet posting on those site. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is a Charlatan. At the same time, if you are offended, just don't read his stuff or watch his videos. Its not hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 giant sites ban a huge user on the same day? Would a reasonable person conclude that they may have discussed this among themselves and made an agreement?

 

Jones has lately been on the radar of social media and streaming services. Spotify removed several episodes of 'The Alex Jones Show' last week, citing violations of its policy against hateful speech. Online sentiment had been building against Spotify for days after subscribers found the episodes' listing on the service.

 

Earlier this month, Facebook faced criticism for Infowars' remaining on the social network, despite its crackdown on the spread of fabricated news. Prior to its action Monday, YouTube removed four of Jones' videos from his channel two weeks ago and suspended him from broadcasting live for 90 days saying the channel violated the company's graphic content policy.

 

Apple's move Sunday to remove five of six Infowars-related podcasts including "The Alex Jones Show" and "War Room" from its directories -- first reported by Buzzfeed News -- seemed to initiate a domino effect. "Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users," the company said in a statement.

 

 

 

Google/Youtube: Google had previously declined to comment on the InfoWars host's standing, but said in a statement to CNBC in response to the removal of the page: "All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube. When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts."

 

YouTube counts "strikes" against pages for posts that violate the company's policies. Jones received a strike in July when he posted four videos that violated YouTube policies against child endangerment and hate speech, the company said in a statement to CNBC.

A page with one strike against it is suspended from live streaming for 90 days, YouTube said, but Jones attempted to circumvent the suspension by live streaming on other channels. As a result, his page was terminated, the company said.

 

 

So it was over a period of some time but it seems that once Apple brought out the ban hammer, the others companies followed suit, in effect saying our TOS are enforced too. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy Hook hoax?

 

Anti-Vaxx er?

 

Ugh, sounds like a real dummy.

 

With that said, there are dummies all over the internet posting on those site. :dunno:

 

There is a difference between stupid and consistently violating the TOS, If you don't believe me, PM Newbiejr and ask him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video touches on all the reasons why Facebook and other social platforms censoring ANYONE is a bad thing. One of Crowders videos that is not comedy at all and all debate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video touches on all the reasons why Facebook and other social platforms censoring ANYONE is a bad thing. One of Crowders videos that is not comedy and all debate.

 

 

To be perfectly fair I'll watch later, don't have 37 minutes to spare right this second. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should hear his thoughts on Chobani yogurt.

 

The best part? Is the same thing I've been saying about mouth breathing Trump supporters all along. You see, Jones got sued for divorce and child custody. And in those hearings, he openly admitted that he was absolutely full of shiit. And still, I don't think he lost a single viewer/listener.

 

People hear the voices they want to hear. Just like blacks love to hear Farrakhan even though he's a raging hypocrite. This is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Joness website, and on the Alex Jones Channel on YouTube said the factory in Idaho, which employs refugees, was connected to the 2016 sexual assault of a child and a rise in tuberculosis cases. The reports were promoted on Twitter under the headline Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists and were spread widely online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington (CNN) Donald Trump is heaping praise on a radio host who has asserted that the U.S. government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

=========================

"Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down,"

=======================

 

Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor's show.

 

Jones shared the love, telling Trump that "my audience, 90% of them, they support you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is a b!tch isn't it? I love it. I hope this guy doesn't make another dime for the rest of his miserable life. Bye loser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy Hook hoax?

 

Anti-Vaxx er?

 

Ugh, sounds like a real dummy.

 

With that said, there are dummies all over the internet posting on those site. :dunno:

 

He is being sued by some of the Sandy Hook parents, in part because he showed his viewers addresses and maps to the homes of the families, and encouraged his followers to make those parents lives miserable, because they are Democrat Crisis Actors obviously. And his followers apparently obliged and continue to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones is a conspiracy minded idiot but is banning him a one-off thing or is he now the first step on a slippery slope?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He is being sued by some of the Sandy Hook parents, in part because he showed his viewers addresses and maps to the homes of the families, and encouraged his followers to make those parents lives miserable, because they are Democrat Crisis Actors obviously. And his followers apparently obliged and continue to do so.

 

Saw mention of the lawsuit, didn't know that's what it was about. That on it's own should have been one big strike on all of those platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones is a conspiracy minded idiot but is banning him a one-off thing or is he now the first step on a slippery slope?

He is taken off their sites...do they have any obligation to provide anyone a platform for whatever?

They have terms of service he/his company agreed to...if you violate them...too damn bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is taken off their sites...do they have any obligation to provide anyone a platform for whatever?

They have terms of service he/his company agreed to...if you violate them...too damn bad.

 

What will you say if/when these social platforms are right-leaning and they start banning people for pro-abortion talk?

 

Sho is making the same argument that dummy in the Crowder video I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones is a conspiracy minded idiot but is banning him a one-off thing or is he now the first step on a slippery slope?

 

I did look for exact examples of things he did that violated TOS, but couldn't find any(not that I have much time to search). Let's give all those platforms the benefit of the doubt and say he absolutely violated TOS and those platforms in light of the fake news, bots, ect. have decided to crack down and he's just domino 1. I have no problem with the ban hammer...again assuming these are clear cut violations, then no slippery slope.

 

The bigger concern would be that the ban hammer is used regardless of political discussion. People on the right will see Jones and say see the libs are denying us our free speech. But if the same platforms smack down PETA for the same sh!t, then I don't see any issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should CNN and NBC be barred for their past transgressions?

NBC editing the Trayvon Martin 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist ?

Or when CNN edited the Keith Scott video to make him appear unarmed?

There are many more weasil intentionally deceitful moves by these and many other main stream media players.

Should they be held to the same standard ? You know TOS and all...mike, snuff ? Wanna give it a stab ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should CNN and NBC be barred for their past transgressions?

NBC editing the Trayvon Martin 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist ?

Or when CNN edited the Keith Scott video to make him appear unarmed?

There are many more weasil intentionally deceitful moves by these and many other main stream media players.

Should they be held to the same standard ? You know TOS and all...mike, snuff ? Wanna give it a stab ?

 

Sure, I'll take a stab.

 

You need to get your meds increased and learn how to make an apples to apples comparison. HTH, cause there is no point in even discussing this in regards to InfoWars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure, I'll take a stab.

 

You need to get your meds increased and learn how to make an apples to apples comparison. HTH, cause there is no point in even discussing this in regards to InfoWars.

who's picking the fruit ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left is dumb enough to believe that this helps their November chances. Jones will get his platform back right after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is taken off their sites...do they have any obligation to provide anyone a platform for whatever?

They have terms of service he/his company agreed to...if you violate them...too damn bad.

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

Calling dead children actors isn't a political opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

They don't get it because censorship is part of the Democratic Party. After all, they are just quieting someone that needs quieting. Right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

 

Don't know anything about the dude (is it a dude?) but, this would be my take as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What will you say if/when these social platforms are right-leaning and they start banning people for pro-abortion talk?

 

Sho is making the same argument that dummy in the Crowder video I posted.

If they are violating those sites terms of services...so be it.

They have no obligation to host his garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

This. It's Alex Jones today. Tomorrow it's you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. They are all private companies but their business model is to provide that platform. Decisions to stifle free speech because of the political beliefs of the provider are troublesome. They shouldn't be n the censorship business.

It isnt stifling free speech...Id be against the government doing this.

That isnt censorship. He is free tonsprw his garbage anywhere he feels like thatbwill take him...they dont have to take him.

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  

×