You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: DTube - We NEED To Talk About The PURGE Of ALEX JONES!
A lot of people say that it's not a threat to free speech, because it's not coming from government. But they don't really know that.
I can imagine them calling out "conspiracy theorist", but nobody is denying that there was collusion between the different sites... "Collusion" being another word for "conspiracy". So you have to wonder why they would shut Infowars down, in collusion, if it weren't for government intervention. It's hard to think where else it would come from.
We also live in a litigious society. These sites have mega billions. When he's posting videos of people harming/insulting people physically, as he did with the video of the man who threw a kid to the ground after arguing over liberalism, people will run out to get a attorney and argue the irresponsible behavior of the corporations whose refusal to remove the videos over profits caused them undue harm if they were similarly assaulted. It's all about profit...not just by these corporations, Alex Jones is also selling something, to maintain his base and income he has to keep upping the bar himself. Competing for attention on the internet can be a tough sell, at some point corporations have to ask themselves how much liability do I want to open myself up to if he keeps upping the bar to stay relevant.
I am not exactly a "fan" of Alex Jones, but to assert that reporting on something that happened as "being harmful", is not rational. If this were the case, then every news station who shows video of someone else being violent would have to be shut down. As for the "liability" of these tax payer subsidized companies.....that argument is moot as well since they merely provide a hosting platform and take no responsibility in the content. They have policies in place that remove porn, or avocation of violence....but they have taken this to an entire social engineering extreme. They can not be ideologically driven when they have received subsidies and government contracts and funding. They do not have the right to censor people for what they believe.
There's a huge difference between news shows that show clips of violence and someone who goes out and deliberately does something to gain attention for profit. With reports on the news it is already established there will be criminal charges forth coming, a punishment of one sort or the other. Furthermore people don't tend to obsess with any particular person or event happening on the news, it's ever changing. That's what I was getting at, people who tune in on a regular basis and
become entrenched in a person's particular style or habits. They see him out knocking people down over political issues and getting away with it others may attempt it....but what if they push someone and he hits his head the right way and dies? It's no different with the hate speech spiels, let someone else do that and several states have laws against it. Alex may get away with it but that doesn't mean everybody else will. Then they are looking at what happened with Zuckerburg being hauled before Congress...could it be that there's concern that if they don't crack down they will all find themselves under regulatory control and censor themselves? That problem is mostly coming from the left in this country, but still there has to be boundaries when it comes to a feeding frenzy to your followers of escalating hate and physical harm, there's way to many people out there in this world who don't know that Alex is acting for the most part to gain attention....some people can't separate the two.
Are you kidding me, the news been reporting on atrocities crated by american and other governments for decades and so far no president/politician has been charged/convicted of war crimes against humanity and so forth, and so forth. Of course I mean the guilty ones, not the patsies. Unless you consider bigger profits for their respective corporations a sort of punishment.
Are you kidding me, you're telling me that there is no cult following for monsters like Cooper Anderson or Wolf Blitzer and so many others. They are celebrities, they are "stars". Even the broadcasting corporations themselves have complete following and loyalty in millions. They operate on the very same principals that Alex Jones does, the only difference is, that they play the game behind the closed curtains, and Alex does not.
BTW, I can't stand Alex Jones, I think he's a pompous prick, but he's still should be allowed to have a voice, being it offensive to someone or not. I just don't listen to him.
©Of course, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong :)
I only watched Alex one time and that was during the campaign of the last election when he sold people on the idea that Assange was going to do a big announcement on Hillary via video link at some special event. Turns out it was just a twentieth anniversary special....that was a huge waste of two hours. I think you are conflating two very different issues into one. In these two examples, whether right or wrong, one is more main stream and the other attracts the nutters of the world. When one attracts more nuts then the other the chances increase that one of them are more than likely already living on the edge. What you don't understand is that people get sued all the time even though they are not directly involved in the harm of another but gave access or a platform for them to do so. A really good current example would be the Mandalay Bay Casino shooting....they are being sued but they were not directly involved. There was no way they could tell someone was about to go off but people want to hold them responsible. With people moving luggage in and out all day long how could they have possibly known? I haven't look to see if there's any Supreme Court rulings on the subject but it would seem to me that if employers could be held responsible for allowing harassment, intimidation or a threatening work environment so could a internet provider.