Poll

176582
Do you like or dislike big tech companies' (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIN, Apple etc) decision to permanently ban Alex Jones/Infowars from their platforms?

DISLIKE
 
  185 votes 48.4%

LIKE
 
  111 votes 29.1%

UNSURE
 
  86 votes 22.5%

382 total votes

Poll added by: James



Comments Showing 1-50 of 119 (119 new)


message 1: by James (last edited Aug 08, 2018 06:22AM) (new)

James Morcan I voted dislike and think it could be the beginning of a slippery slope with more and more internet censorship.

Given that most of our flow of information, and even much of formal child/adult education, is now done via the internet rather than physical books/papers/records, should we be concerned about increasing measures to censor the internet?

It seemed to be a co-ordinated censorship of Alex Jones/Infowars where Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIN, Apple and Spotify all banned him on the exact same day...

I'm no big fan of Alex Jones or Inforwars, by the way. I mean he/they do have some legit underreported facts and have exposed definite corruption over the years, but at the same time there are a lot of assumptions made and tinfoil hat-style leaps of faith thrown in the mix...

But anyway, my main concern here is freedom of speech issues...And a kangaroo court in the media and on social media (deciding who is morally wrong), instead of actually going to court and making sure someone like Alex has actually broken any laws - and crossed that line from freedom of speech to hate speech and inciting violence (he has never broken any laws to my knowledge and the "morality charges" against him by those online seem ambiguous to me).

I also think it's incorrect to say private companies like Facebook, YouTube and others can simply make any rules they want and decide who stays and who goes just because they are not governmental. For example, if a company added into their terms and violations rules that they will not allow people of a certain race to post on their platform, that would be illegal on behalf of the company. I am aware that's a rather extreme example, but I'm also wondering in the U.S. with the constitution and the First Ammendment, if these companies may be illegally curtailing freedom of speech?

Alex Jones pages removed from Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07...

Twitter says Alex Jones and InfoWars accounts don't violate policy, will remain live for now https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/twitt...

Free speech must apply to everyone https://www.kokomotribune.com/opinion...

I think freedom of speech is one of the most important things we have... Alex doesn't seem to be crossing the line into obvious hate speech, so this is getting dangerous now as he's almost being lumped in with real criminals...

I tend to agree with many others that there may be moral issues with Alex...But morality is a different subject to freedom of speech...If we try to enforce morality to public speakers then half the people on air would be taken off the air...

So maybe we must weigh up ethical considerations, or sensitivity issues, versus the damage that the warping of freedom of speech laws can create... Because now there's a precedent with Alex Jones. Does that mean it will be easier to ban others in future? Including other public figures that are potentially political targets or threaten the business interests of these major media and tech corporations?

I dunno, maybe I am missing something here as haven't followed the intricacies of Alex's statements and his whole Sandy Hook false flag/inside job claims. But you have to wonder...Did Alex do something to threaten these Silicon Valley corporations?


message 2: by Iain (last edited Aug 08, 2018 06:28AM) (new)

Iain McKenzie Couldn't care less if it was Alex Jones or Owen Jones on 'trial by social media' here.

Leave it to the law and lawyers to work out what constitutes 'hate speech', incitement and all the rest, they're far more qualified to do so.


message 3: by Angela (new)

Angela Crawford I may not like what someone has to say but I'll defend the right they have to say it. Right now it's Alex Jones but next it could be you. A slippery slope coated with grease,,,


message 4: by Bóriwulf (new)

Bóriwulf  Vákinóvson I agree with the comment above by Angela. Next time it could be any of us. As a fellow you-tuber and a content creator, I gave a FIRM DISLIKE, not because I like or support Alex Jones and his Info Wars "business scheme", but beause everyone is entitled to a free speech and opinion. This has nothing to do with SJW's or anything of that sort. Whatever the message or the themes are, let the person speak his mind. Sure, mister Jones might have been a control oposition or just a puppet for the elites, but so bloody what? The whole internet is very soon to be repackaged, rebranded and re-labeled ala 1984 style. This is not some silly conspiracy theory of some random flat-earther or a truther and a new-age guru. I have been censored by YouTube couple of times. Check my channel, you'll see what I mean. Things are getting pretty insane and the potions are brewing in the cauldron. It's a nasty fiasco, I gotta tell ya, but don't fockin panic for goodness sake. Keep calm and steady and fight fire with fire! ...or in other words, figh censorship with bare fists!


message 5: by Dallas (new)

Dallas I voted dislike. The coordinated censorship in some regard is the right of the companies that reacted. If our government was not controlled by corporations freedom of speech would not be legitamently be part of this discussion, but such is not the case. The phobia of controversy is the engine of this insidious machine.


message 6: by Diane (new)

Diane May Definitely dislike. Here's why: either freedom of speech exists or it doesn't. We can't say "Yes, I'll allow it" when we like the message, and "Nope, I'll ban this" when we don't. The internet helped movements like the Arab Spring, #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, and we loved that, but let's not forget that conspiracy theorists and propagandists have the right to use it too. Like James said above, let's not confuse morality with freedom of speech. The First Amendment says the government can't pass laws limiting our right to speak, so why should we allow private companies or social networks to do it?


message 7: by Bill (new)

Bill Williams More speech, not less.


message 8: by { U n s o l v e d M y s t e r y } (last edited Aug 08, 2018 01:04PM) (new)

{ U n s o l v e d M y s t e r y } As long as you aren't threatening to harm or murder anyone, you should be able to say ANYTHING you want.

Words are just that, just words. Alex Jones and other conservatives are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree with it or not.

Hate speech is very subjective. Get over it!
Ever heard of the term "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me...."?
Words do hurt, but again....just words. Grow up, Snowflakes! LOL

I see or hear of things online that offend me EVERY SINGLE DAY. Is anything done about it? Nope.

Freedom of speech isn't just for the left.


message 9: by Dan (new)

Dan Bimrose Lol...non-governmental entities can and
will censor anything they want. Telling these
companies they have to facilitate and post
hate speech is a violation of their free speech
rights. This is basic constitutional shit. They
can all get together, throw a party, call it the
“Let’s ban Alex Jones on the Same day
for no good fucking reason party”
and there is nothing anybody can and should
do about it. So many people have such a
limited understanding of 1A.


message 10: by Debbie (new)

Debbie I dislike it for all above reasons, Sorry but I'm not going to rewrite everything everyone has comment above I agree with all of you %100. 😏


message 11: by Auburn (new)

Auburn Langley I agree with Dan, so much of what we take in from media is cultivated and targeted already.

A lie told to enough people will start to sound true and that’s exactly what infowars has done. Good riddance.


message 12: by Iain (last edited Aug 09, 2018 02:44AM) (new)

Iain McKenzie Auburn wrote: "I agree with Dan, so much of what we take in from media is cultivated and targeted already.

A lie told to enough people will start to sound true and that’s exactly what infowars has done. Good ri..."


The problem is the pivotal role the big tech companies currently play in society as a medium and the precedent they have set here.

This isn't just about Alex Jones.

"and there is nothing anybody can and should
do about it."

Elsewhere, non government entities also have to abide by anti-trust laws.

Are you suggesting Infowars have lied in every post they have submitted, even if a lot of it is just references to other news and information releases, including government, sometimes with their opinion on it?


message 13: by James (new)

James Morcan Auburn wrote: "A lie told to enough people will start to sound true and that’s exactly what infowars has done. Good riddance. ..."

Yes, good riddance to free speech for all of us. Who needs that anyway, it's soooo overrated :)


message 14: by Kathi (new)

Kathi Defranc I definitely do not agree with what he has to say, but,by blocking him,or anyone, you take away 'freedom of speech'...If you think that way, you realize that is indeed a slippery slope...I voted dislike for that reason, but freedom of speech seems to be taken away many times, and it is not noticed! A person calls a 'group' a derogatory name, is blocked for that reason,but was it not 'freedom of speech'?
A tough concept to keep straight,this 'Freedom' of ours...


message 15: by Kathy (new)

Kathy Porter I do not believe in taking away freedom of speech in any way. It disturbs me greatly to see so many going after one man, who I don't particularly enjoy watching, but sometimes he happens to be spot on with his challenges.

What is even more disturbing is the amount of people that are happy to have such censorship! Alex Jones may make up some crap, but have you watched the news lately? They are full of crap too. Mostly putting forth their own opinions instead of giving "the facts and only the facts". There is virtually no difference between Jones and the network and cable news.

At one time Alex Jones types were acclaimed "underground news sources". Most of us knew it was partly wildly made up. This intolerance and censoring must stop or we will truly start losing our rights as citizens.


message 16: by Joshua (new)

Joshua Schmude I feel the same, even if i dont agree with what someone has to say i will defend their right to say it. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE BACKBONE IF OUR CONSTITUTION! The fact that they want to censor him makes them look guilty as hell. Its time for americans to come together and stop this or else anyone who has something negative to say about the political establishment will be censored and called a terrorist. This is tyranny.


message 17: by Kathi (new)

Kathi Defranc Joshua wrote: "I feel the same, even if i dont agree with what someone has to say i will defend their right to say it. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE BACKBONE IF OUR CONSTITUTION! The fact that they want to censor him ..."
Exactly Joshua, and so many things happen daily that removes freedoms but no one calls it...


message 18: by Lance (new)

Lance Moore I agree with most of the comments already on here: Alex Jones says some true things, and some stupid and false things, but let him speak! We have laws against libel, and that's enough. Otherwise, free speech must be protected, even if we don't like what a person says. Free speech should be one issue that conservative, liberals and all in between should agree upon.


message 19: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Huffman I think he should be allowed to run his own website but if all these other websites wanna kick him off, they’re allowed to do that. If YouTube was nationalized, democratically owned, maybe Alex Jones would be allowed to stay on there. But it’s not.


message 20: by Mario (new)

Mario Pinheiro During the colonial-fascist regime of Salazar, covering the ex-Portuguese empire, we couldn't speak freely, we had the PIDE-DGS in our backs, we had the same kind of fears as we all have now. I remember well how painful it was. But now the dictatorship is more intense, their masterminds hidden and threatens our existence as free individuals. The dictator Salazar was a saint compared to what we do have nowadays, and globalized. Global awareness must be cultivated in order to defend humanity against this unprecedented historical threat.


message 21: by Dustin (new)

Dustin I don't know anything about this..:(


message 22: by Josh (new)

Josh Morales Most people agree that Alex Jones isn’t very much supported but should be able to speak. So I’m in the same boat.

What I think has to be considered is that he has used his platefo to slander many people. From ruining a pizza business, calling people rapists and de-humanizing the people he disaggregate with. At what point do you just call him a giant cyber bully? If someone publically clamped I was to blame for child pornography or something just as outrageous to a large audience, my reputation would be ruined.

Where’s the line between free speech and slander? I’m the judge of that, but it needs to be addressed.


message 23: by Joshua (new)

Joshua Schmude Lance wrote: "I agree with most of the comments already on here: Alex Jones says some true things, and some stupid and false things, but let him speak! We have laws against libel, and that's enough. Otherwise, f..."

Totally agree this is a non partisan issue


message 24: by Dan (last edited Aug 09, 2018 12:03PM) (new)

Dan Bimrose Alex Jones is not being denied his right to
speak. He can speak from any platform he
wants and that accepts his message. There
are obviously so many big government
conservatives on here who wants to pat
themselves on the back for supporting free
speech at the same time want to deny
corporations and businesses the ability to run
their business and deny them their rights.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook have been banning
accounts forever and because a case hits the
news and now you are upset? Give me a break,
seriously. Can the KKK have a public rally on
public streets? Yes, of course that is free speech.
Can the Government tell a private entity that
they have to use their platform to allow any
message and they have no control over it. No,
because that would be government denying
them THEIR rights to free speech. This is
truly basic constitutional stuff here guys. You
are suggesting that YouTube might come after
you next? Well they might and they can because
YouTube is not the US government. Don’t
like YouTube’s policies then don’t use YouTube.
There are plenty of outlets for Alex Jones
message that accept his message and even
encourage it. Use those services, but remember
using your clearly unconstitutional rules those services must give
a platform to operations like msnbc and
cnn ... hmmm... I wonder if they would
have anything to say about that.


message 25: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller I dislike what little I have heard of Alex Jones, but that is not the issue. Big companies tend to do what as few as one dictate, and the use of that power to inhibit free speech is fatal to our way of life. I would go for better enforcement of libel, slander, and other laws, but not the stomping on free speech by a very limited elite.


message 26: by Kristina (new)

Kristina V. Ramos This is not North Korea.... or Russia..... I definitely don’t support him, but I’m shocked by this kind of censorship


message 27: by Dan (new)

Dan Bimrose Okay since the majority of you have chosen
to scrap the US constitution, there are a huge
amount of people who would very much like
to be able to access porn on YouTube. Can
you fight for that as well. Well as long as
that porn doesn’t advocate for killing people
it should be allowed, right?


message 28: by James (new)

James Morcan Kristina wrote: "This is not North Korea.... or Russia..... I definitely don’t support him, but I’m shocked by this kind of censorship"

It's crazy, isn't it?!
Looking more and more like a corporatocracy...


message 29: by Iain (last edited Aug 09, 2018 12:46PM) (new)

Iain McKenzie Dan wrote: "Alex Jones is not being denied his right to
speak. He can speak from any platform he
wants and that accepts his message. There
are obviously so many big government
conservatives on here who wants..."



He's being denied being included in or having access to the following by the big tech companies(who have majority market share), on specious grounds:

YOUTUBE

In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube

In 2015, 18-49 year-olds spent 4% less time watching TV while time on YouTube went up 74%

On mobile alone, YouTube reaches more 18-49 year-olds than any broadcast or CABLE TV network

You can navigate YouTube in a total of 76 different languages (covering 95% of the Internet population)

The time people spend watching YouTube on their TV has more than doubled in the last year

YouTube is the world’s second largest search engine and third most visited site after Google and Facebook

FACEBOOK

As of June 30, 2017, Facebook enjoys 2.01 billion monthly active users.

79% of Americans use Facebook—the platform with the second closest usage percentage is Instagram, at 32%.

More than half (53%) of U.S. residents use Facebook “several times a day.”

22% of the world’s total population uses Facebook.

400 new users sign up for Facebook every minute.

Facebook Messenger has over 1.2 billion monthly active users.

Users access Facebook an average of eight times per day.

APPLE

26% (73 million) listen to podcasts at least every month – up from 24% in 2017 (Infinite Dial 18)

17% (48 million) listen to podcasts weekly – up from 15% in 2017

44% (124 million) of the US population has listened to a podcast – up from 40% in 2017 (Infinite Dial 18)

DISQUS

17 billion average views per month

50 million comments per month

Access to 191 countries

2 billion Number of people that read Disqus comments monthly

Now if you can't see the power in those stats, you need to book yourself an optician.

The trends are going in an upward direction, not down.

Their apps are essentially the defacto standard for their markets.

And any competitors who pose a threat are bought up. So let's go use the alternatives?

"There
are obviously so many big government
conservatives on here who wants to pat
themselves on the back for supporting free
speech at the same time want to deny
corporations and businesses the ability to run
their business"

Do you have to be a 'big goverment conservative' to question the veracity of 'big tech's' actions here?

Explain how NOT banning Alex Jones would effect the running of their business?

There's also the grounds on which he was banned to consider. If big tech is really sincere about 'cleaning up' their platforms and ridding us of 'hate speech' then why is there worse out there still lingering? Why was Jones targeted specifically?

Does he have a case for discrimination?

And the other question is: did they(big tech companies involved) work in conjunction or did they follow suit after one took the bold step to censor him? And why now? He's said worse in the past?


message 30: by Dan (new)

Dan Bimrose There is no case. He can try to sue, but he
will lose. In a week nobody will be discussing this because there
really is nothing anyone can do and the parties involved know this.
Was it a conspiracy among multiple companies? I guess that might fit a narrative that some may push. But if the government is not one of those parties this is not a free speech issue. Sorry, but by definition it is not. People can have self righteous indignation but the US constitution does not care about people’s feelings. It was Romney who said “corporations are people my friend”. While I may not agree with the sentiment, the fact is that the courts support this conclusion. Corporations have free speech rights as well. This includes the ability to not speak and to control the material that is disseminated on their platform. If the government were involved with this decision then I would be right there all upset, but lacking any government involvement and since Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist is not part of a protected class there is nothing that can be done.


message 31: by James (new)

James Morcan Iain wrote: "Do you have to be a 'big goverment conservative' to question the veracity of 'big tech's' actions here? ..."

No you do not, and I think some people are confusing this as a partisan issue. Or else they are thinking it's about whether Alex has a case or not, or whether they care about Alex himself.

It's none of those things.

It's simply: Are we concerned that Big Tech conglomerates have suddenly begun to implement censorship (seemingly, to suit themselves and their own interests) when they didn't do that in the past?


message 32: by Iain (new)

Iain McKenzie Dan wrote: "There is no case. He can try to sue, but he
will lose. In a week nobody will be discussing this because there
really is nothing anyone can do and the parties involved know this.
Was it a conspirac..."


"In a week nobody will be discussing this because there
really is nothing anyone can do and the parties involved know this. "

Until the next 'Strawman' comes along . . . .

I see your 'angle' and your point on the 'legal position' of said companies, but it's the broader scope of their power, intent and susceptibility to abuse that worries me.

So, should we ask the Government to step in at some point considering the power the few wield over us and are gaining?

(which could open up a whole new can of worms)

In fact Computer Security professional and privacy specialist, Bruce Schneier
sees that very thing happening in the future as IoT and embedded devices become more prevalent, and let's not forget these companies will no doubt be in those markets too.


message 33: by Dan (new)

Dan Bimrose The point you are arguing is valid. Surely,
it is reasonable to be concerned. A reliable
study concerning actual legislation passed,
suggests that we are functioning as an oligarchy
and primarily serving corporate interests
today. So I totally get that the lines between
government and industry and military are
very much blurred.

You are right that asking for government intervention
does open a can of worms. We would be a
long way from finding a solution and without
a constitutional amendment that would never
pass the courts.

This is the way things were set up. Perhaps
we could find a better way the next time as
I very much agree with Rousseau that the
body politic from its inception is destined to
die.


message 34: by Janet (new)

Janet Colbert I never heard of him before all this. So banning him brought more attention to him. I would prefer not to listen to him. But that should be my choice. STOPPNow: (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now STOPPNow (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now by Janet Colbert


message 35: by Iain (new)

Iain McKenzie Dan wrote: "The point you are arguing is valid. Surely,
it is reasonable to be concerned. A reliable
study concerning actual legislation passed,
suggests that we are functioning as an oligarchy
and primarily s..."


Essentially, Peter Weller's vision in Robocop of an Omnicorp type scenario in the future wasn't that far off.

A Rousseau quote is very apt for this case, Dan. Here's another:

"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."


message 36: by Joshua (new)

Joshua Schmude Dan wrote: "Okay since the majority of you have chosen
to scrap the US constitution, there are a huge
amount of people who would very much like
to be able to access porn on YouTube. Can
you fight for that as w..."


I think the majority of people who want to watch porn use porn hub....just sayin 😁


message 37: by Dan (last edited Aug 09, 2018 04:47PM) (new)

Dan Bimrose lol. Agreed Joshua, but that’s my point. I don’t want to see porn
on YouTube, nor do I care because there are places for that which
are more appropriate. Just like there are places which welcome
the material of Alex Jones and would be proud to have it. Now if
the government would shut those sites down then I would be up
in arms about that. That is government censorship.

It is the people on here who are now characterizing the US as
North Korea which is absurd. North Korea controls completely
what info is disseminated to the people. I have seen no one
give one shred of real evidence that the government intervened
in this. Plus I really don’t think the current administration wants
to tamp down the voice of Alex Jones. Doesn’t even make
sense from that perspective.

Now a very select few on here are arguing that these social media companies have grown so large that they have become similar
to a public utility and therefore should be subject to different
rules. I can understand that argument, but there is no real case
law that I know of to suggest that would be constitutional.

More concerning to me is the recent poll of Republican voters which showed nearly a majority would favor the government
being able to shut down news organizations accused of “behaving
badly.”

I’m wondering how many of the people who are standing up for
Alex Jones being on YouTube think that CNN should be shut
down for being “fake news.”

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-poll...

As for me I have to leave this thread. Got shit to do. It’s been interesting though. Never had a discussion like this on Goodreads.


message 38: by B.E.L.L.A.Mc (new)

B.E.L.L.A.Mc Dislike censorship in any form. My theory? We'll see InfoWars back on all platforms very soon. He's been censored to allow 'them' to Censor the Soc Med they're really after; the independent News Outlets. This gives 'them' the appearance of being 'fair'. The Independents they want rid of are predominantly Left Wing. Watch this space; he'll be back soon. All part of the plan. BTW I hate Infowars.


message 39: by Adam (new)

Adam Come on James, great example of push polling.

And also mountain out of a molehill. More confected drama and lies.

So funny seeing the MAGAkins squealing hypocritically.

Go to Gab and whinge there in an echo chamber and circlejerk.

Corporations aren't held to same laws as government. So it's cute seeing MAGAkins being armchair lawyers but turn a blind eye to Trumpy.

Don't like the US? Then go live in Russia, write some fake news there and see what happens. If you see the bullet quick enough that is.

AJ is crap and gives the rest of the ilk a worse name, just another profiteer on the gullible. Keeps warning about martial law since Bush 43 and spouts Russian disinfo like Obama to take over the country and get all your guns during Jade Helm live fire exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_He...

So don't ask stupid questions James, it seems you've fallen for the really stupid stuff.

A lot of bored dumb retirees need to get a hobby instead of being so gullible and falling for the obvious lame hoax that is QAnon.

Same with Sandy Hook and Parkland crisis actors 'researchers'. Sometimes real shit happens, not everything is a conspiracy. Seth Rich LOL. PizzaGate? Well someone got killed for some BS non-existent basement and the killer looks like a nutcase and is rotting in jail.

Stop falling for the FEMA camps rubbish. Stop listening to crap. Get the data and facts but don't play amateur sleuth and knit up coincidences in to a silly whacky theory.

Get rid of AJ, good riddance I say. Let's celebrate.


message 40: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Huffman James wrote:

It's crazy, isn't it?!
Looking more and more like a corporatocracy."


Lol you say this like that’s not exactly what we’ve lived in since Reagan helped make all of capitalism’s wildest dreams come true.


message 41: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor I'm voting unsure. I'll defend anyone's right to free speech, no matter how vile or how much I personally disagree with their message, but these tech platforms are businesses providing services. Their decision to ban certain users and certain messages has to be considered based on their clientele. If facebook's business is somehow better off without Infowars on their site, then that decision is up to them. The counter to that is for everyone who disagrees with the decision to close their accounts and leave the site...if that kind of censorship costs them their consumer base, then they'll have to change their mind.

But when it comes to facebook specifically, let's not forget, this was the site freely taking money from Russia to run questionable and incendiary ads. And while they were doing that, they were banning and shutting down veteran and military groups because some of the content was a little crude.

But then again, after the Cambridge Analytica thing angered everyone, people are still on facebook sharing polls and surveys as if that wasn't how CA got your info. I think whatever the social media companies do, people are too married to them for it to affect their bottom line.


message 42: by James (new)

James Morcan Adam wrote: "Come on James, great example of push polling.

And also mountain out of a molehill. More confected drama and lies.

So funny seeing the MAGAkins squealing hypocritically.

Go to Gab and whinge t..."


Awww shucks mate, thank you for your obsession with me (albeit in lieu of actually giving an opinion on the subject at hand). Your lazy assumptions about my beliefs on this matter are virtually all wrong, but I'll still take your obvious fixation with me (e.g. you mentioned my name more than Alex Jones in your post!!) as a backhanded compliment nevertheless.

Meanwhile, if you can ever forget about me for even a few seconds and care to try again to comment on the actual poll topic, knock yourself out.


message 43: by Iain (last edited Aug 10, 2018 01:45AM) (new)

Iain McKenzie Adam wrote: "Come on James, great example of push polling.

And also mountain out of a molehill. More confected drama and lies.

So funny seeing the MAGAkins squealing hypocritically.

Go to Gab and whinge t..."



"Corporations aren't held to same laws as government"

Another one stating the obvious, but missing out on the bigger picture and ramifications in this particular case. . . .

"Don't like the US? Then go live in Russia, write some fake news there and see what happens. If you see the bullet quick enough that is. "

What are you on about?

The big tech companies running their social media platforms are almost ubiquitous in scope, i.e. the silencing is applied cross-border in a global manner.

The argument here, in this case, is more about the increasing power the big tech companies wield over society as a medium, in a global capacity, and how formidable they can be when they come together to silence anything they deem dissent or 'persona non grata'.

What you smoking over there in Canberra?


message 44: by Iain (last edited Aug 10, 2018 01:36AM) (new)

Iain McKenzie J.J. wrote: "I'm voting unsure. I'll defend anyone's right to free speech, no matter how vile or how much I personally disagree with their message, but these tech platforms are businesses providing services. Th..."

Good points.

I feel we're at a rubicon stage with 'big tech'; even if we were to protest their actions by boycotting their products, we would hardly make a dent as society is so fractured and partisan on the minutia of issues(including this one) that they are blinded to the bigger picture and ramifications that could entail, in order to herd together and force a change . . . .


message 45: by Peter (last edited Aug 10, 2018 03:02AM) (new)

Peter Mcloughlin I feel about Google, Facebook, Youtube, Apple and such the way people felt about monopolies like Bell Telephone company back in the day. I would find it hard to go without right now and they have me over a barrel but I do resent it mightily. In the long run, these resentments lead to political action I hope.


message 46: by Siyab (last edited Aug 10, 2018 03:33AM) (new)

Siyab Hassan Well choosing one option relies on the way how you are using it.As long as you suck own benefits from it then you will start counting it in the likeness category.But if it exploits you and agravitates the situation then it quelles your mind and you go for dislike option.It helped me at critical juncture and provoke me to not let incite the negative side.A lot of knowledge shower upon us because these sites are fraught with it.Just need to take a step toward knowledge and then these sites let you help in finding a vent to congealment of knowledge.


message 47: by The Once and (new)

The Once and Future King I voted like because they already censor Left Wingers who tell the truth. Time for some Karma. We don't need a conspiracy nut who thinks Obama is still ruling the country 🤣 to continue to decieve people. He's a charlatan and a pompus windbag.


message 48: by Nathan (new)

Nathan I remember reading it somewhere...first they laugh at you,then they fight you,then you win.


(((THEY))) are fighting us now by banning "far right" media and figures on the right. I take it as a compliment...all they are doing is pointing MILLIONS of people in our direction...infowars,libertarian minded places like the Ron Paul institute,SF eventually,ANYONE that uses infowars CAN BE pointed in our direction eventually its not a huge step! I don't think Infowars is a great place I don't even care for Jones BUT its a step in the right direction...red pilling people left and right and the (((media))) is helping us by shining a HUGE light on us!


message 49: by Josh (last edited Aug 10, 2018 06:28AM) (new)

Josh Morales It’s interesting how many people refuse to stay objective of the subject. We all agree siliencing opinion should be against the law. Even though saying immoral things is wrong ethically.

If the conversation is about who is left and right. You lose the substance of the conversation and can no longer gain insight.

Let’s stay objective. I identify as libertarian More than anything, but the policies I believe are fair for the people today are policies far left say. So I don’t say I’m red or blue. I’m just looking at what I think should be public policy and what shouldn’t be. No political party will ever say what I completely 100% agree with.


message 50: by Temi (new)

Temi Abimbola Alex Jones is Hot Garbage, Freedom of Speech is great as long as you're not a big platform that spreads false data and debunkable conspiracy theories.


« previous 1 3
back to top

Members can create polls
widget

142309

Underground Knowledge — A discussion group