GRcade

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:Starting to think this Infowars ban is a massive own goal. They have handed Jones a massive amount of mainstream publicity, when his site and his own profile have always been way out on the fringes and very niche. I don't know of anyone on the right or left that actually takes him seriously anyway.

I think his YouTube channel only had 30,000 subscribers, but he has been given publicity to millions of mainstream TV and news site viewers.

It’s not an “Infowars ban”, some websites have just decided that they don’t want to host his content. There is therefore no “own goal”, it just means YouTube and other websites don’t want to be associated with him.

And if you don’t think people take him very seriously then you should take a look at the gooseberry fool the parents of the murdered Sandy Hook children get. Directly thanks to Alex Jones being a massive banana split. People, including the current President of the United States, take him very seriously indeed.

Yes Sandy Hook was a disgrace and those videos should have been blocked. Its baffling they didn't take action at the time. Frankly questions should be asked why action wasn't taken 6 years ago.

I'm talking generally in terms of his effect on mainstream politics and culture. He is a nobody that generally isn't taken seriously aside from a handful of nutcases who would harass families of murder victims no matter who is the catalyst.

I think you are playing with semantics. The main social media sites have banned him. I don't defend Alex Jones, I'm just criticising the way they went about this after waiting so long. It's given him an even larger platform than he could have ever dreamed of, making headline news across the globe. No doubt this will drive new subscribers to his main website and he will be able to keep his profile high for a long time off the back of this. He thrives on this sort of thing. His videos today of his trademark rant about it are being shared all over twitter.

Like I say, he should have been banned 6 years ago when he initially made his disgusting and idiotic comments about Sandy Hook.

twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1026734814769160192

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:Starting to think this Infowars ban is a massive own goal. They have handed Jones a massive amount of mainstream publicity, when his site and his own profile have always been way out on the fringes and very niche. I don't know of anyone on the right or left that actually takes him seriously anyway.

I think his YouTube channel only had 30,000 subscribers, but he has been given publicity to millions of mainstream TV and news site viewers.

It’s not an “Infowars ban”, some websites have just decided that they don’t want to host his content. There is therefore no “own goal”, it just means YouTube and other websites don’t want to be associated with him.

And if you don’t think people take him very seriously then you should take a look at the gooseberry fool the parents of the murdered Sandy Hook children get. Directly thanks to Alex Jones being a massive banana split. People, including the current President of the United States, take him very seriously indeed.

Yes Sandy Hook was a disgrace and those videos should have been blocked. Its baffling they didn't take action at the time. Frankly questions should be asked why action wasn't taken 6 years ago.

I'm talking generally in terms of his effect on mainstream politics and culture. He is a nobody that generally isn't taken seriously aside from a handful of nutcases who would harass families of murder victims no matter who is the catalyst.

I think you are playing with semantics. The main social media sites have banned him. I don't defend Alex Jones, I'm just criticising the way they went about this after waiting so long. It's given him an even larger platform than he could have ever dreamed of, making headline news across the globe. No doubt this will drive new subscribers to his main website and he will be able to keep his profile high for a long time off the back of this. He thrives on this sort of thing. His videos today of his trademark rant about it are being shared all over twitter.

Like I say, he should have been banned 6 years ago when he initially made his disgusting and idiotic comments about Sandy Hook.

Playing with semantics? You mean pointing out that Infowars has not been “banned” and that the President of the USA takes Alex Jones very seriously?

Your argument appears to be that Infowars should have been taken off of YouTube 6 years ago, but as it wasn’t it should now stay there in case it causes an own goal and gives Alex Jones more publicity? Is that seriously your argument?

Alex Jones is a scumbag and far more people listen to him that you seem to be able to imagine. Of course his filth should have been removed years ago. But it wasn’t. And it is now a good thing (a really bloody good thing!) that it has been.

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:Starting to think this Infowars ban is a massive own goal. They have handed Jones a massive amount of mainstream publicity, when his site and his own profile have always been way out on the fringes and very niche. I don't know of anyone on the right or left that actually takes him seriously anyway.

I think his YouTube channel only had 30,000 subscribers, but he has been given publicity to millions of mainstream TV and news site viewers.

It’s not an “Infowars ban”, some websites have just decided that they don’t want to host his content. There is therefore no “own goal”, it just means YouTube and other websites don’t want to be associated with him.

And if you don’t think people take him very seriously then you should take a look at the gooseberry fool the parents of the murdered Sandy Hook children get. Directly thanks to Alex Jones being a massive banana split. People, including the current President of the United States, take him very seriously indeed.

Yes Sandy Hook was a disgrace and those videos should have been blocked. Its baffling they didn't take action at the time. Frankly questions should be asked why action wasn't taken 6 years ago.

I'm talking generally in terms of his effect on mainstream politics and culture. He is a nobody that generally isn't taken seriously aside from a handful of nutcases who would harass families of murder victims no matter who is the catalyst.

I think you are playing with semantics. The main social media sites have banned him. I don't defend Alex Jones, I'm just criticising the way they went about this after waiting so long. It's given him an even larger platform than he could have ever dreamed of, making headline news across the globe. No doubt this will drive new subscribers to his main website and he will be able to keep his profile high for a long time off the back of this. He thrives on this sort of thing. His videos today of his trademark rant about it are being shared all over twitter.

Like I say, he should have been banned 6 years ago when he initially made his disgusting and idiotic comments about Sandy Hook.

Playing with semantics? You mean pointing out that Infowars has not been “banned” and that the President of the USA takes Alex Jones very seriously?

Your argument appears to be that Infowars should have been taken off of YouTube 6 years ago, but as it wasn’t it should now stay there in case it causes an own goal and gives Alex Jones more publicity? Is that seriously your argument?

Alex Jones is a scumbag and far more people listen to him that you seem to be able to imagine. Of course his filth should have been removed years ago. But it wasn’t. And it is now a good thing (a really bloody good thing!) that it has been.

Fear Alex Jones? Honestly that's just ridiculous. The guy pedals shite, is an admitted actor and only a very small niche takes him seriously. I sincerely doubt Trump takes him seriously,he used him when it was expedient.

Yes they should have banned him 6 years ago when he very clearly broke all kinds of Ts and Cs. The fact they didn't, but now see fit to is just baffling.

Facebook, YouTube etc now have a monopoly on the public sphere in terms of speech so yes it does amount to a ban.

Hexx wrote:

twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1026734814769160192

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Hexx wrote:

twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1026734814769160192

This tweet has managed to make me really angry. How dare he even considering invoking imagery like that to this end. Shame on him.

Rightey wrote:So was there a specific reason all these sites started pulling Alex Jones down now?

I don't really think it matters if all the social media sites were to block him all at once, or if it happened over a longer period of time for specific violations as Jones would just always claim it was the Lizard People Deep state going after him, but it would probably be getting less main stream media attention.

Preezy wrote:Twitter shouldn't have to defend their decision, just as Apple and Youtube shouldn't have to defend theirs. They're all private corporations that are free to deny/allow whoever they like on their platform.

Preezy wrote:Twitter shouldn't have to defend their decision, just as Apple and Youtube shouldn't have to defend theirs. They're all private corporations that are free to deny/allow whoever they like on their platform.

twitter.com/TeaAndCopy/status/1027132824757919744

Tafdolphin wrote:

Preezy wrote:Twitter shouldn't have to defend their decision, just as Apple and Youtube shouldn't have to defend theirs. They're all private corporations that are free to deny/allow whoever they like on their platform.

twitter.com/TeaAndCopy/status/1027132824757919744

twitter.com/Sethrogen/status/1014168992376766470

Tafdolphin wrote:So he's technically correct (sort of) but morally reprehensible.

Karl wrote:It's all well and good saying "if we ignore the crackpots and fascists they won't get any attention and then they'll go away", but the last decade of political discourse would seem to empirically contradict that. If we can convince social media and networking apps/websites to pull crackpot &/ fascist content then that might generate a little bit of publicity for the pulled content short term, but long term it will mean fewer people will be exposed to that kind of propaganda via those platforms and that has to be a good thing.

Moggy wrote:I don’t know if that is aimed at me, but that is certainly not my position.

Moggy wrote:If I owned or was in charge of Twitter then twats like Alex Jones would have been gone a long long time ago.

People like Alex Jones should be reported and complained about until sites like Twitter finally act against him. But it is for Twitter to decide (again as long as it is within the law) what they do and do not allow people to post. However much I might personally hate it.

Hopefully Twitter does come to it’s senses and gets rid of all the far right loons. But I don’t think they will while Trump is President, they would end up losing their best customer.

Hexx wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Saw a thread from a fundraiser on this yesterday: it's likely all lies to increase their funding. No doubt they've taken a few hits but they're nowhere near insolvency.

I'd hate this to be true, but I can see it as plausible

twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1026900890085732353