Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

THE PRICE OF A FREE MEDIA > Should we be concerned about internet censorship? (1st Case Study: Alex Jones/Infowars... 2nd Case Study: Vaccine Critics... 3rd Case Study: Julian Assange/WikiLeaks... 4th Case Study: David Icke... 5th Case Study: Donald Trump)

Comments Showing 1-50 of 119 (119 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 06, 2018 10:52PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments 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? Should we also be concerned that massive global tech companies like Google/YouTube, Facebook, Apple, etc, are the ones in control here? Not saying I want government interference, but could any government stop these enormous private corporations censoring things to suit themselves, even if they tried?

I have been thinking of this whole issue for a while, but then I saw in the news today the seemingly 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 and also have done quite a bit of important work, but at the same time there are a lot of assumptions made and tinfoil hat-style leaps of faith thrown in the mix...Where Alex lost me tho was when he suddenly become uber-political and partisan (I was a aware he was always Conservative thinker, but he never used to be so pro-Republican and openly hated both Bush presidents for example)...And so when he turned Infowars into essentially a political campaign platform for a while and became Trump's #1 advocate, that all seemed very naive to me...Think Alex got used there, by Trump himself who probably knew the tens of millions of Infowars' audience could help him win... "fringe voters" if you will... And Trump himself found Infowars important enough to do a lengthy interview with Jones in his presidential campaign... Maybe Alex Jones got starstruck by being in Trump's extended field for a while!

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 others that there may be moral issues with Alex...He's annoyed me for a number of years on that score.,..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. Did Alex do something to threaten these Silicon Valley corporations?

What do you guys think about this Infowars case and internet censorship in general??

message 2: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Iain wrote: "'freedom of speech ACROSS the spectrum' ..."

That's a great phrase, Iain, because to support freedom of speech it has to include those whose opinions are diametrically opposed to your own.

message 3: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 10, 2018 03:54AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Iain wrote: "With the obvious caveat that you or those in opposition aren't breaking the law, disingenuous, spreading unfounded rumour that infringes on your personal well-being, slander and all the rest...."

Yes, or DIRECTLY inciting acts of violence or other forms of harassment. And that's my whole issue with this Alex Jones case, it appears he has said Sandy Hook was a false flag as an expressed opinion...Which has prompted a few nutcases, out of the tens of millions of Infowars followers, to go and verbally abuse parents of victims (somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Jones ever encouraged anyone to go and attack parents of victims violently or with direct aggression).

So if that's true, it's all accusations of being INDIRECTLY responsible...and that's a dangerous form of justice those who are banning Jones are carrying out (kinda the equivalent of banning filmmakers who indirectly and INADVERTENTLY inspire criminals to murder others in copycat fashion to the murders in the Fictional movies...)

Alex E. Jones

Alex E. Jones

message 4: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments I don't subscribe to many of Ben Shapiro's views either, and he openly calls Alex Jones "a bad man" -- but I do agree with at least some of the points he raises here about the slippery slope our society may now be on by casually banning people like Jones...


message 5: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 07, 2018 04:34AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Agree Iain, who cares about all these dumb labels like left, centre or right...those terms are very outdated and overly simplistic and have very little relevance to this brave new high tech world we find ourselves in...I find also it's mostly in America that most people still use left versus right definitions anyway...So maybe they are lagging behind in this instance...

Interesting tweet toward from Wikileaks re Alex Jones:


Verified account

19h19 hours ago

The empire strikes back: Apple, Spotify, Facebook and Google/Youtube all purge Infowars/Alex Jones. Yes, Infowars has frequent nonsense, but also a state power critique. Which publisher in the world with millions of subscribers is next to be wiped out for cultural transgression?


p.s. Is Julian Assange implying Wikileaks could be banned too?

message 6: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) Facebook and Twitter have both taken heat for allowing bots to muddy the waters of political discourse. Then they take heat for trying to do something about it.

I'm not saying Facebook is right to ban Alex Jones but it is their service. First amendment doesn't enter in because they aren't the government. Partisan "news" channels don't give air time to opposing views (unless it's to portray them in a bad light).

I would like to get away from FB myself but it's the only game in town for a lot of things. People I want to keep up with and other things like bands are there. I can get some of that from Twitter but Twitter is even less useable in a lot of ways.

I guess my point is that nobody is forcing any of us to use these services and there are other places on the web for whatever discussion you want to have.

message 7: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) Personally, while I don't agree with Alex Jones, I think he has a right to express his opinion. I just don't agree that FB, YouTube, etc. are obligated to provide him a platform. There is an Infowars web site that isn't going anywhere.

message 8: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments It's not so much about obligation to provide a platform in my opinion. It's more justifying removal and explaining it in terms of violation of terms of service... Because there you get into ambiguities... and then you have to question whether those grey areas in their violations of terms can be used again and again in future against more important people than Alex Jones... This all becomes more crucial a subject as these tech companies grow bigger and bigger...

message 9: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Iain wrote: "What about these platforms build a better and more accessible system to alert you to any contravention of their TOC and the ability to dispute any violation of terms, where their could be ambiguities, before an outright ban? ..."

Yes, exactly. I recently had a YouTube upload from a Boston radio show interview I did titled "DEBUNKING Holocaust denial theories" incorrectly labelled hate speech because some YouTube users complained - apparently they assumed it was fascist hate speech as they misunderstood the title and obviously didn't listen and just assumed it was attempting to debunk the Holocaust instead of debunking Holocuast denial... And what I found very strange is YouTube gave me just 1 right to appeal, which was no more than about 30 words...And then a reply came back within about 90-120 seconds to say something generic like "We have considered your appeal, but our decision still stands"...It felt like AI replied as I'm not sure anyone could have considered everything that quickly and then made a decision and typed a reply...

That experience also made me think they are purposefully building very limited systems that lack adequate rights to appeal or detailed explanations of what terms have been violated, AS IT SUITS THEM BETTER THAT WAY. They don't want total transparency.

What's interesting is smaller social media sites with much smaller budgets, even like Goodreads for example, actually have much more transparency and better ways to appeal and good explanations of what terms have been violated...But apparently YouTube (which is owned by Google ffs) cannot afford to create more detailed systems? hmmm...

message 10: by Roberto (new)

Roberto Audiffred | 6 comments We should definitely be worried. I think the days of the uncensored Internet will be remembered as the "pre-Code" days in comic books or Hollywood movies, a curious anomaly of the past. This type of thing would have caused more of an uproar in the past, I think, but people have become desensitized to the censorship mentality (you can see how many people support the Jones ban, since they disagree with what he has to say, without thinking how this same censorship could be applied to them). However, I think there is not much use in worrying now, we live in "1984" and I don't think we can do anything about it, sadly.

message 11: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Roberto wrote: "you can see how many people support the Jones ban, since they disagree with what he has to say, without thinking how this same censorship could be applied to them..."


message 12: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 2791 comments 'Hasn't violated our rules': Twitter chief defends not booting Alex Jones https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hasn-t-vi...

What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones? https://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...
The inconsistent embargo on Infowars demonstrates the breadth of tools tech companies have to police speech.

message 13: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Twitter a beacon of hope?

message 14: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments I wonder if Twitter might get leaned on and suddenly change their minds... Because Facebook originally said Alex definitely hadn't broken any of their terms of conditions like Twitter is currently saying... It must please Alex to at least know he has made some enemies in very high places :)

message 15: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Jesus, even MailChimp has blocked him!
Who next? Myspace??

message 16: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) I'm not as worried about what the tech companies are doing as I am about very loud voices from the left calling for censorship. As a lefty, myself, that goes against my beliefs.

Our institutions can only be as good as our people, government, business, or whatever.

message 17: by David (new)

David Elkin | 508 comments I am with Jim again. People get the government they deserve. We have stopped reading and rely on dubious sources for information. Many have stopped even considering other view points because we don't agree with them. Blind faith has killed before, it is killing now and will kill again in the future. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.

Old gloomy signing off

message 18: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 08, 2018 03:00PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Iain wrote: "I disagree, I am more worried about the tech companies here, Jim. They're the medium...."

Yes they are indeed the medium...and consider the wealth of most of these Silicon Valley tech companies is more than many nations' wealth. Such vast corporations like Google can therefore buy politicians and greatly sway elections by their influencing powers, not just by curating news stories to their advantage, but now it seems by banning (obvious version) or "shadow banning" (stealth version) anyone who goes against their interests.

We got a corporatocracy going on here...

p.s. If Amazon (who own Goodreads) suddenly ban Alex Jones also, does that mean this discussion thread will be deleted too?

message 19: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 2791 comments We currently have a group poll running on this subject which asks group members "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?"

Vote in the poll and comment on it here: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

message 20: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 10, 2018 03:53AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Joe Rogan on Alex E. Jones Being Deplatformed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgB-p...

Meet the Strawman to Erase Our First Amendment Online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlOz...

Did Alex Jones Expose Social Media’s Neutrality Delusion? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articl...
The shunning of a conspiratorial radio host shows a broader incoherence in the tech business.

message 21: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 10, 2018 09:13PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Aside from the opinions each of us have of Trump and Alex Jones, and aside the whole Left/Right political paradigm, does this recent Tweet from the President mean that internet censorship may infringe on freedom of speech laws even if it's being done by private corporations? Could there soon be Congressional hearings coming up over this whole issue?

Donald J. Trump

Twitter “SHADOW BANNING” prominent Republicans. Not good. We will look into this discriminatory and illegal practice at once! Many complaints.

9:46 PM - Jul 26, 2018

message 22: by Glen (new)

Glen Tucker (tommytucker) | 55 comments I am reading Fake News by Mark Dice, who is equally vociferous about Youtube and all the other Google information manipulators.
Absolutely unacceptable that these Global corporations can manipulate the news and who gets to give it.
The attack on Free Speach is getting worse, day by day. In the UK, the corporate control of the media and even our PM shows how they try to use politically correct speech to manipulate.

message 23: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 12, 2018 08:27AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments FREE SPEECH ICON NOAM CHOMSKY SAYS BIG TECH WAS WRONG TO BAN INFOWARS https://www.infowars.com/free-speech-...
MIT professor Noam Chomsky defends Alex Jones’ right to be offensive

message 24: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 12, 2018 08:34AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Glen wrote: "The attack on Free Speach is getting worse, day by day. In the UK, the corporate control of the media and even our PM shows how they try to use politically correct speech to manipulate. ..."

Interesting you mention "corporate control", Glen, because I think we may now be entering a realm where capitalism is bringing up some censorship issues...Not that we'd necessarily want an alternative to capitalism, but I'm wondering if this is where we want to avoid unregulated capitalism... And that means government intervention to manage capitalism for the people while keeping the best of free market politics...

In the past censorship was a Left wing issue where it almost always came from governments. Socialist/communist regimes, for example, or simply Left wing busy body governments. But now it seems like what we have now with these vast corporations and monopolies is much more a Right wing issue...And we may need to take the best of the Left by bolstering governments to work on behalf of the people in each nation to defend against enormous global corporations of Big Tech, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil etc, etc, and also protect the freedom of speech of individuals?

message 25: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments ALEX JONES: WE MUST DEPLATFORM GOOGLE, APPLE & OTHER TYRANNICAL MONOPOLIES https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-w...
Globalist influence over social media companies must be stopped

message 26: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) We have a situation where a handful of corporations own almost all the broadcast media, audio and video; nearly all print, periodicals and books; and now all the major web sites. That's not to mention movie studios and distributors. There used to be laws against that much consolidation but those types of laws have gone out of fashion. It puts more of a burden on consumers who want to avoid propaganda.

message 27: by Glen (new)

Glen Tucker (tommytucker) | 55 comments James wrote: "Glen wrote: "The attack on Free Speach is getting worse, day by day. In the UK, the corporate control of the media and even our PM shows how they try to use politically correct speech to manipulate..."

I don't see any government or centralised body being able to control these corporations. The corporations, our current economic systems, our health providers, our legal systems etc etc are inextricably combined so that it is impossible to remove the connections between them. In fact, to do so will result in economic and social breakdown to the extent that our race would be on the brink of extinction. One only has to look at the complex global movement of goods and services, upon which we rely for our food, the critically unstable monetary system and the vulnerability of the system to keep resources to see how easily the system can fail catastrophically.
This is the stark reality of the crisis we face: any minor interventions to control those corporations is impossible, so embedded are they in the global economy and control of it.

Problematically, large numbers of the global population are also currently doomed because of the lethal effects of pollution, insurrections, wars, starvation, lethal health interventions etc. This is the reason for the acceleration of automated systems, the forced uneconomic introduction of technology, its promotion by the global corporations which result in removing people from the operation of the economy, the elite (1%) are planning for the eventuality that they will no longer need masses of people by the introduction of AI and single point control of the whole system.
There are a number of ways to frustrate this planning. One, of course, is divine intervention, more acceptably described as "unforeseen circumstances" if you do not believe in any spiritual existence. The election of Trump has been declared by the 1% themselves as this!
Secondly, there is the interconnectedness of the communications globally and the power of consumers to withhold their money from the economy and to direct it in a way that removes power from the 1%.
It is for this reason that the 1% are investing huge resources into psychologically indoctrinating the majority of the population by a multi-faceted attack on free speech, organisations committed to combating them and to remove as many independent sources of information as possible.
Promoting a belief in "Science" is another tool to crush debate, although the "science" is based on manipulated results and ensures other ways of thinking are cast into doubt by obvious techniques of biased reporting paid by the same organisations about which the investigations are supposed to be unbiased.
Anyone who stands back from the debate and lets go of preconceived bias, can see the thoughtful manipulation of events, especially if they don't support one side or the other in the "divide and rule" tricks that the 1% are so good at instigating.
The final result will, in any case, be the frustration of the elite, because they have been unable to foresee the fact that the Earth, etc, Nature itself, is reacting to this strategy. The planet will survive, the human race will be almost destroyed (unless "alien" intervention is decided upon) but will recover in a different form.
It is obvious that extraterrestrial life is both here and watching, only a totally arrogant belief in the solitary existence of homo sapiens, can imagine such a highly improbable idea.
I do enjoy the discussions here, because at least you, my colleagues are prepared to exercise your God-given intellect to challenge the so transparent propaganda of those who'd like us all to be automatons! Here's to rebellious thinking!

message 28: by Glen (new)

Glen Tucker (tommytucker) | 55 comments Well, Noam, they don't much care about whether we think they're wrong or not. They get what they want and few people are able to do anything about it! But thanks for the obvious.

message 29: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments First they came for Alex Jones… Now Facebook bans Venezuela news site https://www.rt.com/news/435578-facebo...

message 30: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 14, 2018 04:41PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Now they are even gonna block Alex Jones from having his own website??

InfoWars Is Down, And Its Staff Says It Is 'Under Cyber Attack' https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/infow...

Alex Jones’s InfoWars Conspiracy Website Is Down https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/1...
The page infamous for spreading "crisis actor" conspiracy theories has been offline for as yet unexplained reasons.

P.S. I just checked the Infowars website and it's still down: http://www.infowars.com/ Considering he's committed no crime, surely Alex could mount a pretty good legal case over all this as something untoward is clearly going on...

message 31: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Twitter has now joined the party...

Why Twitter Finally Suspended InfoWars' Alex Jones for His Tweets http://fortune.com/2018/08/15/twitter...

message 32: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Trump, incensed by Twitter's Alex Jones suspension, vents about bias https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...

Bill Maher and Donald Trump Agree: Alex Jones' Hate Speech Is Still Protected Free Speech https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bill-...
'If you care about the real American shit or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak,' Maher said HBO's 'Real Time'

Trump buys into conspiracy that social media censors conservatives https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...
And Alex Jones’s seven-day Twitter ban seems to be why.

message 33: by Tantra (new)

Tantra Bensko (tantrabensko) | 74 comments I'm not sure if Jones being banned is legit or not. It could be that these places are in fact banning him because they don't like him. Or, he could be orchestrating it with them and with whoever he is working for. That way he gets more riled up fans, martyr status, more attention, looks like he's been busted for telling the truth.

What concerns me more is some other people banned like Jay Dyer whose JaysAnalysis was removed from Wordpress. That's real, for sure, and terrible censorship, not from free social media where arguably it's their call but from a paid service.

message 34: by Glen (new)

Glen Tucker (tommytucker) | 55 comments Tantra, even more, a reason why we should see this, have you a copy or where can we find this analysis.
By the way, there is a group which for some reason hasn't been taken off the web that provides scientific evidence that 9/11 was allowed by the then US government, in other words, it was a conspiracy, NOT theory.
The group is called Architects and Engineers for 9/11: https://www.ae911truth.org/

message 35: by Tantra (new)

Tantra Bensko (tantrabensko) | 74 comments I don't think there's a copy of Jays Analysis yet but he does have material up other places.



message 36: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 2791 comments Rage Against the Social Media Machine: Citizen and Civilian Consumers Are Finally Test Driving #WOKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5VNX...

message 37: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Watch "Rowan Atkinson on England and Freedom of Speech" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UeU...

message 38: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Conspiracy Theorist 8/21: Coordinated Attack
Alex Jones was the victim of a political hit. YouTube (owned by Google), Apple, Facebook, and Spotify all removed content originating from Alex Jones and his InfoWars site on the same day, in an obviously coordinated attack. We’re supposed to believe this was the result of leftist lobbying from the likes of CNN.
Monopolies, cartels, and free speech

message 39: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 2791 comments The poll which asked group members "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?" is now complete.

Here are the voting results:

48.6% voted DISLIKE
29.1% voted LIKE
22.3% voted UNSURE

Check out the lively comments section beneath the poll: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

message 40: by Jarin (new)

Jarin Jove (jarin_jove) All that proves is their ignorance. Corporations are legally considered people and can set up what they want in their platforms.

message 41: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Jarin wrote: "All that proves is their ignorance. Corporations are legally considered people and can set up what they want in their platforms."

You're 100% right about the legal ramifications, but note that the poll question was not "do you think companies who banned Alex (and others) was legal or permissible", but rather "Do you like or dislike big tech companies' decision" which extends this entire subject far beyond legalities or private sector norms and instead pushes it into a PUBLIC debate...questioning whether streams of information being controlled to such an extent by these Big Tech private corporation MONOPOLIES Is now interfering with the democratic process itself...

message 42: by Jarin (last edited Sep 02, 2018 04:35PM) (new)

Jarin Jove (jarin_jove) James wrote: "Jarin wrote: "All that proves is their ignorance. Corporations are legally considered people and can set up what they want in their platforms."

You're 100% right about the legal ramifications, but..."

Cambridge Analytica and all methods of psychological and algorithm research into the phenomena of in-group social dynamics show that false information, which Alex Jones repeatedly peddles, can lead to heinous consequences like manipulating an election. It wasn't just Russia that did this; China did this to island countries around the South China Sea to get elected officials more favorable to them and less favorable to the US's interests elected by violating their democratic processes the same way Russia did to us.

Please tell me; What is the point of protecting this form of Free Speech, where Corporations would be forced to make crackpot theorists like Alex Jones equal to legitimate journalism like ProPublica and HuffingtonPost, if it means the destruction of our country's safety, the elimination of our social safety nets, and possibly the annihilation of our wellbeing?

It doesn't serve a valuable purpose, it isn't in actuality an infringement on his First Amendment rights to throw him out of those platforms, and allowing him to do as he pleases with other people's money (as the platform of the corporation is the one hosting him in this example) then what benefit does it afford anyone? Did anyone else think of the long-term safety of the US public when putting a moron like Trump in power? And, that isn't even including Climate Change.

What exactly is beneficial in allowing a moron like Alex Jones to continue spreading disinformation and further causing emotional trauma for the parents of the Sandyhook victims?

Every moron that voted in support of Alex Jones is literally putting our lives in danger at this point.

message 43: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Jim wrote: "We have a situation where a handful of corporations own almost all the broadcast media, audio and video; nearly all print, periodicals and books; and now all the major web sites. That's not to mention movie studios and distributors. There used to be laws against that much consolidation but those types of laws have gone out of fashion...."

Good points, Jim. Years ago we used to hear complaints from the public and politicians about monopolies and the need to guard against them. Now you hardly ever hear those complaints and I assume that either the laws have been relaxed concerning monopolies or else corporations have found more creative ways to work around those laws.

BIG problem when you consider these Big Tech powerhouses such as Google can greatly influence elections and democracy itself by secretly or subtly promoting certain politicians/candidates they approve of and shadow-banning others they dislike. And none of that even takes into account this very recent phenomenon of actually censoring those Big Tech does not approve of.

Scary times!

message 44: by Jarin (new)

Jarin Jove (jarin_jove) James wrote: "Jim wrote: "We have a situation where a handful of corporations own almost all the broadcast media, audio and video; nearly all print, periodicals and books; and now all the major web sites. That's..."

As opposed to actively propagating lies and hate to spread fear, hate, and violence upon others? Alex Jones's "platform" is going to get people killed if he's treated equally to real news sources.

message 45: by Jarin (new)

Jarin Jove (jarin_jove) Iain wrote: "Jarin wrote: "James wrote: "Jarin wrote: "All that proves is their ignorance. Corporations are legally considered people and can set up what they want in their platforms."

You're 100% right about ..."

You're lying. All he spreads is his crazy conspiracy theories.

message 46: by Jarin (new)

Jarin Jove (jarin_jove) Iain wrote: "Jarin wrote: "Iain wrote: "Jarin wrote: "James wrote: "Jarin wrote: "All that proves is their ignorance. Corporations are legally considered people and can set up what they want in their platforms...."

Okay, so I'm dealing with someone who thinks conspiracy theories are real. Good to know.

message 47: by James, Group Founder (last edited Sep 02, 2018 06:20PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Jarin wrote: "Okay, so I'm dealing with someone who thinks conspiracy theories are real. Good to know..."

17 conspiracy FACTS (formerly theories, that turned out to be true):

Number 1: Operation Paperclip

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...

CIA records: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-fo...

The New York Times: Nazis Were Given 'Safe Haven' http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/...

The Guardian: UK arranged transfer of Nazi scientists to Australia (Operation Matchbox) https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/a...

Number 2: Operation Northwoods

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...

ABC News: U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

Number 3: Operation Mockingbird

The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/why...

"In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an exposé of a CIA program known as Operation Mockingbird, a covert program involving, according to Bernstein, “more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Bernstein found that in “many instances” CIA documents revealed that “journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

Operation Mockingbird - The Black Vault http://www.theblackvault.com/document...

Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.

The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

Declassified Documents http://www.theblackvault.com/document...

The New York Times: Project Mockingbird - Spying on Reporters https://washington.blogs.nytimes.com/...

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA - Carl Bernstein http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine...

Number 4: Project MK-Ultra

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...

The Washington Post: The Victims of MKULTRA https://www.washingtonpost.com/archiv...

Number 5: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

TIME: How the Public Learned About the Infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study http://time.com/4867267/tuskegee-syph...

Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...

Number 6: The U.S. Military Is Creating Insect Drones

CNN: Military drones that mimic hawks and insects http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/tec...

DAILY MAIL: Military unveils insect-sized spy drone with dragonfly-like wings http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...

Is That a Bug or a Robotic Spy? https://www.roboticstomorrow.com/arti...

“A team of researchers in conjunction with the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research is developing what they are calling a micro aerial vehicle (MAV) that will undertake various espionage tasks. The robotic insect can effortlessly infiltrate urban areas, while being controlled from a long distance; and it is equipped with a camera and a built-in microphone.”

Number 7: Operation Midnight Climax

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...

SF Chronicle: When the CIA ran a LSD sex-house in San Francisco http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/ar...

Number 8: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

NSA.gov (declassified reports) https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/dec...

New York Times: Vietnam War Intelligence 'Deliberately Skewed,' Secret Study Says http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/pol...

The Truth About Tonkin | U.S. Naval Institute https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalh...

"Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War." -U.S. Naval Institute

Number 9: Project Sunshine

Project Sunshine: A Tale of Body-Snatching | Mysterious Universe http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06...

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...

Number 10: The U.S. cover-up of the perpetrators of Unit 731 – the ‘Asian Auschwitz’ 

American cover-up of Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...

The New York Times: A New Look at Japan's Wartime Atrocities and a U.S. Cover-Up https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Number 11: The Willowbrook State School Hepatitis Experiments

Victims of sinister medical procedures included residents of Staten Island's infamous Willowbrook State School http://www.silive.com/northshore/inde...

Medical Ethics Text: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScience...

"Mentally retarded children housed at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York, were intentionally given hepatitis in an attempt to track the development of the viral infection. The study began in 1956 and lasted for 14 years.

The researcher also wanted to determine the effectiveness of gamma globulin injections as protection against hepatitis.  They justified their deliberate infections and exposures by claiming that given that there was a high rate of infection in the institution it was practically inevitable that the children would become infected."

Number 12: The 1933 Reichstag terror attack…A Nazi false flag attack

"There is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends." -Shirer, William (2011). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon and Schuster. p. 192.

Sunday Telegraph:  Historians find proof that Nazis burnt Reichstag http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

Number 13: The Monster Study

Monster Study - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster...

The New York Times: The Stuttering Doctor's 'Monster Study'


Number 14: Animal Spies

Smithsonian: The CIA’s Most Highly-Trained Spies Weren’t Even Human As a former trainer reveals, the U.S. government deployed nonhuman operatives—ravens, pigeons, even cats—to spy on cold war adversaries https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...

The CIA's bizarre attempts to use animals as spies during the Cold War era http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Number 15: The Duplessis Orphans 

Duplessis Orphans – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupless...

The Duplessis Orphans - CBC Archives - CBC.ca http://www.cbc.ca/archives/topic/the-...


Number 16: Operation Gladio

Operation Gladio – Wikispooks https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation...

The Black Vault – Operation Gladio (Declassified documents) http://www.theblackvault.com/document...

NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation GLADIO and the Strategy of Tension https://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-s...

Number 17: The Guatemalan syphilis experiment

Wikipedia: Guatemala syphilis experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatema...

The Guatemala syphilis experiment and medical ethics in science-based medicine https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-...

message 48: by John (new)

John Banks | 224 comments Great post James!!!

Certainly conspiracy theories exist!!

But all have a basis of fact in them, the public of many nations have had experiments committed on them,
many "happenings" have been laughed off as conspiracy theories.
Wars have started because of false flags and conspiracy theories,

Its so convenient for "Agencies" to dismiss reality by calling it a Conspiracy theory!

911 being the biggest one!

message 49: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments John wrote: "Great post James!!!

Certainly conspiracy theories exist!!

But all have a basis of fact in them, the public of many nations have had experiments committed on them,
many "happenings" have been lau..."

Agreed John, not many realize how many proven real world conspiracies there are out there. In many ways, the elites (whether financial ones or royals or ruling political classes) have always acted conspiratorially ("conspiring" to action their own devious plans while lying to the public).

Julian Assange, a man who is probably responsible for proving more factual conspiracies than any other person in history, once said "There are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracies. It's important not to confuse these two."

Which I think brings us back on topic here to Alex Jones, who besides mentioning a fair few crazed conspiracies and acting over the top, has also raised a lot of factual conspiratorial-style corruption in our world. I don't agree with many of his interpretations, and I wish he'd stick to more facts, but the the fact is he does reference a lot of proven corruption in amongst all his speculation (which conveniently, the mainstream media is not mentioning).

But more important than all that, where do we all think this new style of censorship in the West will end? I personally think it'd be naive to believe it'll just end with Alex Jones... Kinda interesting also that even Noam Chomsky, who is on the Left and therefore diametrically opposed to Jones' politics, says it was a grave mistake and a threat to democracy to ban Jones (even tho he disagrees with Jones' opinions)...

message 50: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11213 comments Iain wrote: "Maybe a solution would be not to ban people outright for their views, but put more onus on him/her to validate their opinion via whatever artifice, and perhaps find a new adequate and creative facility for viewers to express their disagreement or agreement fairly(other than just the use of comments or 'likes')..."

Yes, agreed, but that would be tricky for mainstream media as the onus could also be put back on them to start proving what they say also. There has probably been more outright lies told by the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and other media outlets in the last 5 years than there has been in the entire 100+ years of broadcast journalism before that...Journalism standards are at an all-time low and as far as I can tell these media outlets are essentially now broadcasting propaganda for the most part...Serious investigative journalists who ask the really difficult, uncomfortable questions are almost non-existent, whereas they used to be common.

Almost getting to the point where we have to all figure out truths as individuals and like detectives - as it's hard to get unbiased info...Every media outlet -- whether mainstream, independent or fringe like Jones -- seems to have an agenda...sometimes it's not obvious at first with certain "news" sources, but eventually you can see traces of political or financial or military/nationalistic bias.

« previous 1 3
back to top