Infowars

[Good4Nothin]

Infowars wasn't shut down.

Platforms can choose to carry or not carry whatever content they want. I prefer to think of censorship as the threat of legal consequences for speaking or writing about certain topics. Platforms choosing not to carry Infowars based on content is not censorship.

The free market should provide, at least in theory, some protection against big tech companies "controlling the narrative" in order to further their own agenda. I do not argue that there isn't some small amount of attempted psychological manipulation going on, but the bottom line is: If enough people wanted to consume Infowars content, then a platform would arise that carried it and it would become more successful than the ones who don't. The free market is the antidote to the kind of political manipulation you are worried about.

There definitely are enough people who want infowars. But as far as I know, no new platform arose for it. Companies like Google, Facebook and Apple started out on some college student's computer, just like thousands of other aspiring companies. These are the tiny fraction that caught on and got big. What is the chance that a right wing nut job friendly tech company will become gigantic, in time for Alex Jones to grab onto it?

We'll see, but I am very worried about our access to unbiased information. I can already see bias all over the place.

 

[lwf]

There definitely are enough people who want infowars. But as far as I know, no new platform arose for it. Companies like Google, Facebook and Apple started out on some college student's computer, just like thousands of other aspiring companies. These are the tiny fraction that caught on and got big. What is the chance that a right wing nut job friendly tech company will become gigantic, in time for Alex Jones to grab onto it?

We'll see, but I am very worried about our access to unbiased information. I can already see bias all over the place.

I think all information is biased to a certain degree by the one who compiled and shared it. The best we can do is get differing opinions from the least apparently biased sources and decide for ourselves. And Alex Jones and Infowars are about as biased as information gets.

And why do right wing nut jobs need a social media platform in order to access conspiracy theories? The only real loss is that they can't access Infowars directly through the social media platform itself. They can still bookmark the web page in their favorite search engine and peruse it at their leisure.

 

[RetiredUSN]

So you want to ban all pigs from social media I guess.

He can say what ever he wants and where ever he wants.

He can also suffer the repercussions.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I think all information is biased to a certain degree by the one who compiled and shared it. The best we can do is get differing opinions from the least apparently biased sources and decide for ourselves. And Alex Jones and Infowars are about as biased as information gets.

Obviously all information is biased, that's the point. Ideally, we would have access to information that is biased in all different directions. But I am afraid we are not getting that now. We may be getting a systematic bias, with certain types of nut jobs screened out. And that is bad.

Why do we need nut jobs you ask? We do need them, because one person's nut job is another person's voice of reason.

We should be getting whatever the "people" want. Not whatever "smart" rulers think is good for the people.

I liked knowing Alex Jones was there, even if I couldn't stand watching him. He was digging up mostly crazy nonsense, but could also make you aware of things you would never see on CNN or Fox. And of course you have to double fact check anything he says.

That's all right, I can fact check my news sources. I don't need Facebook and Google to fact check for me.

What prevents Google from deciding, for example, that climate change deniers should be banned, since they are endangering the planet? Or anti-vaxxers because they risk children's lives. Etc.

Wikipedia is already very biased against whatever it considers "anti-science."

 

[lwf]

Obviously all information is biased, that's the point. Ideally, we would have access to information that is biased in all different directions. But I am afraid we are not getting that now. We may be getting a systematic bias, with certain types of nut jobs screened out. And that is bad.

Why do we need nut jobs you ask? We do need them, because one person's nut job is another person's voice of reason.

We should be getting whatever the "people" want. Not whatever "smart" rulers think is good for the people.

I liked knowing Alex Jones was there, even if I couldn't stand watching him. He was digging up mostly crazy nonsense, but could also make you aware of things you would never see on CNN or Fox. And of course you have to double fact check anything he says.

That's all right, I can fact check my news sources. I don't need Facebook and Google to fact check for me.

What prevents Google from deciding, for example, that climate change deniers should be banned, since they are endangering the planet? Or anti-vaxxers because they risk children's lives. Etc.

Wikipedia is already very biased against whatever it considers "anti-science."

Privately owned social media platforms are always going to host only things they agree with. They might pretend to be "unbiased" and free, but none of them truly are. But all of the things that specific social media platforms choose not to host are still easily accessible. Facebook and Twitter are not monopolizing the information available. They're just focusing it in the direction that they see fit, and in doing so drawing a huge base of customers. You and I are free and welcome to ignore their information in favor of other available information. Alex Jones is still there. You can get to his website through the link I shared in my previous post.

You are entitled to expose yourself to a broad range of information. When social media platforms ignore certain information and focus on other information, it in no way hampers your ability to get that certain information.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Privately owned social media platforms are always going to host only things they agree with. They might pretend to be "unbiased" and free, but none of them truly are. But all of the things that specific social media platforms choose not to host are still easily accessible. Facebook and Twitter are not monopolizing the information available. They're just focusing it in the direction that they see fit, and in doing so drawing a huge base of customers. You and I are free and welcome to ignore their information in favor of other available information. Alex Jones is still there. You can get to his website through the link I shared in my previous post.

You are entitled to expose yourself to a broad range of information. When social media platforms ignore certain information and focus on other information, it in no way hampers your ability to get that certain information.

Social media provides a network that constantly draws in new audiences. Joe Bloe's website is isolated and nobody knows it's there without Google and Facebook, etc.

Yes a lot of people already know about infowars, but lots of others don't.

Google is a critical gateway to all our information. I hate the fact that I use google all the time. It steers me where it wants me to go. I would love to find an alternate search engine.

 

[vaard]

There are alot of CT videos on youtube....

The line may not be actually defines to the inch what is unacceptable but it turns out claiming that the parents of murdered children... not adult children or even young adult children, but umder 10 years old children.... are crisis actors and they children are not really dead turns out to cross that undefined line.....

That coupled with lawsuits and the republicans passing laws where the platform owners can also be held legally responsible for what is their sites probably made it easy for youtube to ban infowars.....

 

[Praxas]

Social media provides a network that constantly draws in new audiences. Joe Bloe's website is isolated and nobody knows it's there without Google and Facebook, etc.

Yes a lot of people already know about infowars, but lots of others don't.

Google is a critical gateway to all our information. I hate the fact that I use google all the time. It steers me where it wants me to go. I would love to find an alternate search engine.

There are plenty of other search engines besides google. Google is not "critical" it's just well known.

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/h...ogle-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

 

[madasheck]

Infowars is not a "source" of anything. It's total garbage that should be put out with the trash. Get your info from somewhere that makes sense.

 

[Jezcoe]

Infowars is not a "source" of anything. It's total garbage that should be put out with the trash. Get your info from somewhere that makes sense.

If Alex Jones claimed that the sky was blue I would go outside and check.

 

[Good4Nothin]

There are alot of CT videos on youtube....

The line may not be actually defines to the inch what is unacceptable but it turns out claiming that the parents of murdered children... not adult children or even young adult children, but umder 10 years old children.... are crisis actors and they children are not really dead turns out to cross that undefined line.....

That coupled with lawsuits and the republicans passing laws where the platform owners can also be held legally responsible for what is their sites probably made it easy for youtube to ban infowars.....

Alex Jones is a nut, although he must have some degree of genius for getting people to believe and follow him. I personally can't stand to listen to him. However, I agree with him somewhat about the globalist elites.

According to Jones, he initially thought Sandy Hook was an anti-gun conspiracy, but later changed his mind. He says they ignored his admission, which he repeated, that he had been wrong.

I don't see Sandy Hook as a valid reason for banning him anyway, even if he had not changed his mind. It was a loony CT, so what?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Infowars is not a "source" of anything. It's total garbage that should be put out with the trash. Get your info from somewhere that makes sense.

As I already said, I very seldom got info from infowars. That's why I only noticed the other day that it was banned.

But if infowars was banned, what else will be? And how many sites that are not banned are suppressed? If it turns up on page four million of your search results, it might as well be banned.

 

[Good4Nothin]

If Alex Jones claimed that the sky was blue I would go outside and check.

Where I am now the sky is black.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I watched a video of Alex Jones being interviewed about being banned. If he wasn't a lunatic before, he sure has earned that title now.

He claims to be on a special mission from God, to oppose the globalists. He says the mission has been accomplished, so he is ready to die now.

I mean, ok, he did stir a lot of people up, that is true. But did he, just one lone loony, redirect history?

I mean really, I can't stand him. But, as with Trump, I can't help sympathizing a little with someone the globalist elites hate so passionately.

 

[Idiometer]

I just noticed that Infowars was banned, from youtube and many other platforms. So obviously I am not an Alex Jones follower, since he was banned months ago and I only noticed now. But I used to look at it once in a while, because I try to get info from varied sources.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do not think we should reject all conspiracy theories without even knowing anything about them. There usually is at least a tiny bit of truth even in crazy theories.

And I do believe there are forces trying to control all of us. This is not a conspiracy theory -- I don't think any one is consciously conspiring to take over the world. But there are powerful groups who will gladly take any additional power you want to hand them.

Youtube, Facebook, Google, etc., have great power over our information. And I'm sure there are political leaders who are happy to team up with them.

Alex Jones is a crazy maniac, but he did influence the Trump election, and he has been a serious political force, with great masses of followers.

Was Infowars shut down simply because it was a source of "fake news," and because it incited "hatred?" Or was it shut down because the big tech companies tend to bond with the Democrats? Overwhelmingly.

So where will all the Infowars followers go now to get their conspiracy theories? Will Alex Jones just give up? Will other anti-Democrat outlets be shut down also?

To the political elites, we are sheep to be herded. For our own benefit, of course! Before the internet it was much easier. Then heck broke lose and we got Infowars, etc. Have the political elites figured out how to bring back the good old days of censorship?

Fear not. The tin foil hat contingent can go to the Infowars web site, can't they?

Just one thing, as an FYI to you: Infowars was largely responsible for the crazy story about how Hillary Clinton was running a child pornography ring our of a DC area pizza parlor, which got at least one of his nut job fans to go there with a loaded gun and start shooting innocent people.

Alex Jones may have 1st Amendment rights, but those rights end where public safety begins. It is because of **** like that that he was banned.

 

[Idiometer]

That makes no sense. Advertisers can simply not advertise on outlets they don't like.

Do you really not understand how that works?

Social media sites get money from advertisers. Advertisers have customers. Customers may boycott advertisers due to their association with a social media site that carries hateful content like Infowars. Advertisers go to the social media company and threaten to pull their ads until they ban the hateful content that their customers find objectionable. (Oops, sorry ... I went and used a big word ... change that to "until they ban the hateful content that their customers don't like.")

This is what is meant by the phrase "money talks."

 

[Good4Nothin]

Fear not. The tin foil hat contingent can go to the Infowars web site, can't they?

Just one thing, as an FYI to you: Infowars was largely responsible for the crazy story about how Hillary Clinton was running a child pornography ring our of a DC area pizza parlor, which got at least one of his nut job fans to go there with a loaded gun and start shooting innocent people.

Alex Jones may have 1st Amendment rights, but those rights end where public safety begins. It is because of **** like that that he was banned.

There is no easy way to draw the line. What about outlets that constantly stir up hatred for the president? Isn't it possible they will inspire a nut to assassinate him?

It is not possible to censor every one who inspires hatred for anyone.

 

[Idiometer]

I'm sure Infowars had plenty of advertisers. That is NOT why it was banned.

No, actually, it doesn't. Most of Infowars' "advertisers" are product that Jones, personally, is trying to sell to his morons.

Rush Limbaugh has been dropped over the last few years by so many advertisers that many stations dropped his show for lack of revenue. There are other examples of boycotts that work. Sometimes, voting with our wallets is very effective. Sometimes boycotts backfire, though. Look at how conservatives stood up to liberals who were boycotting Chick-fil-a a while back.

 

[AGENT J]

I just noticed that Infowars was banned, from youtube and many other platforms. So obviously I am not an Alex Jones follower, since he was banned months ago and I only noticed now. But I used to look at it once in a while, because I try to get info from varied sources.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do not think we should reject all conspiracy theories without even knowing anything about them. There usually is at least a tiny bit of truth even in crazy theories.

And I do believe there are forces trying to control all of us. This is not a conspiracy theory -- I don't think any one is consciously conspiring to take over the world. But there are powerful groups who will gladly take any additional power you want to hand them.

Youtube, Facebook, Google, etc., have great power over our information. And I'm sure there are political leaders who are happy to team up with them.

Alex Jones is a crazy maniac, but he did influence the Trump election, and he has been a serious political force, with great masses of followers.

Was Infowars shut down simply because it was a source of "fake news," and because it incited "hatred?" Or was it shut down because the big tech companies tend to bond with the Democrats? Overwhelmingly.

So where will all the Infowars followers go now to get their conspiracy theories? Will Alex Jones just give up? Will other anti-Democrat outlets be shut down also?

To the political elites, we are sheep to be herded. For our own benefit, of course! Before the internet it was much easier. Then heck broke lose and we got Infowars, etc. Have the political elites figured out how to bring back the good old days of censorship?

TOS was violated and reported to often. Rules are rules :shrug:

 

[HumblePi]

It took Facebook way too long to ban this bastard. But money talks and he had 850k followers on Facebook and that means big $$ for Facebook. Any man who contrives conspiracies that are specifically designed to be inflammatory and inciting, is a danger. Cultivating stories such as he has should be against the law in my opinion. The radio host is best known for spreading unsubstantiated allegations about tragic events, including 9/11.

He is currently being sued for defamation by the parents of two children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which he has repeatedly claimed was a "giant hoax". Twenty children under the age of seven and six adults died in the attack. The parents of 6 year old Noah Pozner had to move 7 times because of threats and harassment after the Infowars conspiracy hoax came out.

In July, he said that Democrats planned to launch a civil war on 4 July or US Independence Day

Last year, he tweeted that Muslims in England were demanding that the Queen either convert to Islam or leave the country. However, the CNN clip Infowars based its article on dates back to 2009 and features a group led by radical preacher Anjem Choudary, who by 2017 was already serving a five-and-a-half-year sentence for inviting support for the Islamic State group (IS)

He has previously said that "transgenderism" is a CIA "plan to depopulate humanity" and that the "normalisation of mental illness" is an "evil paedophile plot to sexualise and destroy children"

In 2013, he described then-President Barack Obama as the "global head of al-Qaeda", and later accused him of arming IS

Alex Jones is vermin and a blight on this country.

 

[Idiometer]

There is no easy way to draw the line. What about outlets that constantly stir up hatred for the president? Isn't it possible they will inspire a nut to assassinate him?

It is not possible to censor every one who inspires hatred for anyone.

The president has security det a ils. Those innocent people in that pizza restaurant did not.

Infowars violated the Terms of Service. It was not censorship.

 

[Geoist]

Of course I'm aware of it. So what? People got offended by a crazy story that almost everyone except extreme gun nuts knew was crazy.

It wasn't just that people were offended. Parents of Sandy Hook victims were being harassed/threatened constantly by Jones' trolls.

 

[Geoist]

Things are more complicated now. It's like if three giant companies owned all the roads in the world. And if one of those companies doesn't like you, you can't use any roads anywhere.

Before Youtube really took off, Jones was hosting his show from his website. Pretty sure fans can still access videos there.