Agreed , bad ideas needs to be exposed for what they are - ill thought out bigotry driven drivel... also makes it easier to filter out people who end up following/liking such content.
Only , I do mean the only one , exception to this is:
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It would seem that Facebook, YouTube and Apple agree with you and have banned him from their sites. Personally, I don't listen to anything he says. But, I doubt if they will draw the same line that you have and will stop there. We will surely be seeing more bans in the coming days, if it is allowed to stand. You might even be willing to expand your limit to include the next ones that they ban. The biggest question is, while you might agree with them today, is there any guarantee that you will agree with them tomorrow? The day after that? Are you sure that your ideas and theirs are perfectly aligned now and forever? Will you still agree with them if they decide that you should not be allowed to say something that you believe in? I don't condemn your beliefs, whether I agree with you or not. But, if we don't stand up for everyone, when we do stand up, we run the risk of being forced to sit down and shut up. Just my opinion. Feel free to differ... while you can.
You have raised very valid concerns , the same one I have had but you look at the Alex Jones's naked harassment affected families , it is a very difficult person to defend.
In the end , I may be acting based on emotion and your position may be the objective one.
The hardest things to tolerate are the things with which we most strongly disagree. I will say this... A "right" is a precious thing and must be defended by all that enjoy them. Rights can be taken away, if we allow it. If we don't stand up for him, who is going to stand for us if the time comes we are attacked in the same manner? Be well and stay free.
100 Agree% with this one...
Ah-ha! We've found our own little piece of common ground. Now, on to find other pieces and build up some real land holdings... LOL
I think we already had a lot of common ground...in any case , nice to meet you!!
There is a difference between being crazy and simply acting crazy.
Alex Jones digs up a lot of dirt and exposures a lot of stuff. I think this is all an act to get others who oppose the system to side with him.
That difference is lost with Mr Alex..
I just found out that Alex has been banned on Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. YouTube being the most damaging. Any thoughts on this @honeybee. I think his show would be welcome on DLive.
To the degree that Facebook is the private property of its shareholders, it's correct to say that they have violated no rights of Alex Jones and that, if anything, he has violated theirs.
If I invite you into my house and you begin to spew nonsense and I kick you out, I have not censored you, I have not violated the First Amendment, and I have not violated your rights. You have violated mine by not respecting my wishes on my property.
That is not to say that the decisions were moral, ethical or even good ones. It is simply how private property and freedom of association work.
I watched Alex Jones all the time right up until Trump became president. About 10% of his show was nonsense. The other 90% was good quality conspiracy stuff. I remember his contributions regarding the truth movement about 9/11. He has spoken out against GMOs, vaccines, fluoridation of water and even the moon landings. Mainstream media report barely any of the stuff he digs up. That makes him a useful alternative.
Alex has a following of millions of people. He has had guests such as Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, David Icke, Donald Trump and he has given a voice to many other conspiracy theorists.
I admittedly rarely watch his show these days as his views have become more pro-republican rather than anti-establishment. I respected him for standing up to the man, which is less and less the case anymore.
A bigger concern for me is the precedent set by these seemingly coordinated bans on Jones. This could lead to bans on other forms of alternative media such as AMTV, Drudge Report, wearechange, David Icke, Mark Dice etc. This could be just another step towards creating a monopoly on information.
In regards to Facebook, their policies are nonsense. I got banned for 3 months at the beginning of the year. I apparently violated their rules. I inquired through their 'customer service' option. They sent a generic response listing their rules. They did not highlight which one I supposedly violated. Three months after the ban, my account was just suddenly reactivated again and I have heard nothing since.
I had problems on YouTube as well as my videos are apparently offensive to advertisers. Before the global changes to monetization requirements, my posts usually received temporary restrictions on advertising. Maybe they didn't like my views on democracy or the beef and dairy industries.
If I bring a big bag of cauliflower and also spew nonsense will you let me stay?
I don't think we should roll out the red carpet for Alex Jones , if he decides to join Dlive on his own that's fine...
#Censorship and 'unpersoning' is #immoral. Shame on your fascism.
I understand your sentiment.. would agree with same about everyone else except Alex..
Maybe we should regulate these corporate behemoths like utility, since they control such a big stake in mass media. .
Just my opinion. I think regulation is the wrong way to go. The problem is that these corporations want to decide what can and can't be said on their platforms. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But, the fact is that they are turning on the users that made them what they are. Whether you like Alex Jones or not, he does have a huge group of followers and Facebook, Google and iTunes happily took the money that he generated for them while they were growing. But, times have changed and the monetary hit they take for kicking him off is not even noticeable now. So, they can afford to do it. So, in the end analysis, it's all about their ability to control the information. Who else likes to control things? Just about any government on the face of the Earth. Do you really want to risk driving two entities with common goals into the arms of one another? While I don't think these companies would want to get into bed with the current US administration, what about the one that comes next? The one after that? When the goals of corporations and government align perfectly, it is the people that will suffer the consequences and they will lose a little more freedom. No. I think we'll have to fight this one, ourselves. This isn't about politics. It's about freedom for everyone... even those with whom we vehemently disagree.
mostly agree...but regulations don't make corporations collude with government they make companies follow established rules...
you like clean water...do you think EPA has any role to play in that ?
I agree that we are a nation of laws and that includes regulations to a lesser extent. To argue that no regulation is necessary is to ignore the obvious... that not everyone has the best interests of everyone else at heart. In the particular example that you cite, some corporations (which are really just a collection of regular people) thought that the "little bit" of waste they put into our rivers and streams wouldn't affect the rest of us. Then, there were others that didn't know the "little bit" of waste they put into our rivers and streams would affect the rest of us. Finally, there were those that just didn't care if what they put into our waters affected the rest of us. Over time, all of these "little bits" added up to make our water undrinkable. Regulation was necessary to stop those that would abide by the law and punish those that wouldn't. It all comes down to the basic fact that no one can exercise their rights at the expense of another. If what you do has a measurably detrimental effect on me, then you have ceased to be my equal and have taken a role of superiority. The role of our government is to insure the fair and equal treatment of all, so in a perfect world, government would be right to stop you from hurting me. But, we don't live in a world where government is always in the right. Like it or not, corporate interests hold sway because they also hold large wallets. I don't think anyone would deny that. As I think I said before, it's really not a problem until the goals of corporations and government unite in a fashion that is detrimental to the people they are supposed to protect. Government is not inherently evil and neither are corporations. But, they have the capability to become evil when they don't have the best interests of the governed at heart. My point in the post above is that some leaders in our government have tried, time and again to find various ways to control the internet through regulations. Now, a few really big corporations are trying to do the same thing, but for their own purposes. I'd much rather that we handle this problem, rather than let them find a "solution" together. I hope this clears up my opinion a little more.