ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th August 2018, 10:52 AM   #1
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
they went after definitely more than Alex Jones, who and what will be next? . . .

I see "the good" (to call it something) in the latest news about Alex Jones.

Not only have the media conglomerate put themselves in the position of defining what is "hate speech" (which not only is undefinable syntactically and semantically, but it should be part of one's own private business), but I think they are making a crass political mistake.

They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?

I very much doubt USG has the brains and spine to heed some sort of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_...m_Prohibitorum

to the chapter, page and paragraph as the Catholic Church did for 10 centuries (which, incidentally, was very industrious to business after the invention of the printing press). In those times they didn't have such things as cell phones, the NSA and FISA courts. So, they actually had to read and think about what all kinds of stuff "heretic minds" were writing about (including Giordano Bruno's and Galileo's preposterous ideas about the earth being round). The officers of the Index even gave them the right to legally and openly defend their points. Galileo's case was extreme because he was vertically making fun of the status quo in ways no one had ever dared and the Catholic Church in those times was politically stronger than USG has ever been. Of course, the NSA does the technical work for them, but it would really be a funny show if they actually start persecuting people for such things as "hate speech".

Alex Jones is some character:

https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

https://www.theonion.com/search?q=alex%20jones

and, of course, not all he talks about are "conspiracy theories". If you spend decades freely talking about all kinds of stuff relating, among many other things, to covert and disinformation operations by USG you will, statistically speaking, say a few things that will be more than half way off, like what he was saying about the Sandy Hook school, fake Moon landings and that pizza parlor in Washington DC serving as front for a child abuse business and of the millions of users and fans he has there will always be some who would take what he says too seriously.

But here is the thing, doesn't USG use the media and all kinds of actors, including "celebrities"?, don't they deceive people in all kinds of ways people can’t even begin to imagine? Are those folks in Washington DC so morally pure? Is child and all kinds of crass abuse really unheard of by USG?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_a...ss_destruction

and the most important aspect would be: would the U.S. media touch any of those issues with a 10 foot pole? I mean even the NY Times would not explicitly mention his name while vaguely talking about Snowden’s revelations and that is definitely effective:

// __ Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
~
What I think is really happening here is the reaction of the media who are losing ground in irreversible ways. I think one of the reasons why people chose Trump is because they have been conditioned to hate U.S. media. Gringos say to the British: "don't judge us based on our media and we won't judge you based on your royalty", but actually those are not such irrational ways of judging one another. I had always heard that lies are tools, then I discovered in the US lies are actually industries.

The most interesting thing is how will USG bring about and enforce laws and regulations relating to their role as thought police when they can't even keep up with all that "Vladimir Putin" nonsense?

Ben Shapiro, not exactly an Alex Jones enthusiast himself, was giving a good example of why such things as "hate speech", which are essentially interpretative, you can't realistically codify and enforce, as moralistically self-righteous as you think yourself as being. He uses the example of he, himself, not saying to someone who biologically is a man and wants for other people to believe he is a woman and, among many other things force people's language usage. He asks: will they tell me that is "hate speech" and even possibly prosecute me for that? Even if you cut your pennies, balls, inject whatever to look like you got some boobs, ... want to be called "she", "legally" change your name, ... you are still a man who cut his pennies, balls, ...

I have worked for a shelter in Harlem, NYC. At times women (actual women should I say) come to us asking for shelter and we can't take them in even during a gelid winter night even though we have had beds. I don't like to do that (I was raised by a single mother), but, "per regulations", I have to. They tell us to give them a sheet with addresses of shelters for women in NYC. Now, I have nothing against that particular person I am using that case as a concrete example of what Shapiro is talking about. That could be seen as "hate", not PR, not quite kosher speech: there is a man there cross-dressing and acting as if he was a woman (which to me, even though very weird, I rationally see it is basically a mild and unimportant kind of delusion, probably a mental illness). He wants to be called "she" and even go by a girl’s name. Now, why doesn't "she" then go to a shelter for women? I have wondered about it, but I guess this very basic question could be deemed "inappropriate", "hateful", . . . when to me it is entirely appropriate, very basic and just. In one of my previous posts I asked a very simple question: "why doesn’t USG ‘freedom-love’ China?" Now, even though I am talking about "love" as USG does (yes, in my case, sarcastically), they could say and have said, that I am really talking about "hate" ...

Let me repeat and in no ambiguous terms that, as Shapiro, I really don’t give a **** about what people do with their very rear ends, it is theirs after all; but when we start calling a man a woman, a tree a bird, a gun some flowers, ... we won’t ever be able to solve any actual issues and politicians will be the only ones profitably exploiting that game.

Last edited by rlopez2; 9th August 2018 at 11:32 AM.
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 10:54 AM   #2
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,935
Cool.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:13 AM   #3
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,927
When you put it that way . . .
__________________
This is not the America I know and love. We're better than this.

Chesley B. Sullenberger III
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:37 AM   #4
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,361
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
Galileo's preposterous ideas about the earth being round
The idea that the earth was round stretches back to the ancient Greeks. And Galileo was born decades after Magellan circumnavigated the earth. The fact that the earth was round was settled (at least in Europe) long before Galileo showed up. That wasn't Galileo's controversial idea. His controversial idea was heliocentrism.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:41 AM   #5
gregthehammer
Muse
 
gregthehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 544
first, they went after Alex Jones, and I said nothing.
Then, they came for ...
then...
Then they came for me

??
gregthehammer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:42 AM   #6
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,637
What if they come for blathering windbags? Somebody's in dreadful danger.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:55 AM   #7
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,393
I think the OPs post is all over the place and incoherent. Where does one start? The defamation case against Alex Jones is certain to help refine the law which is absolutely necessary. His argument is threefold.
1. He's not traditional media. The libel laws don't apply to his speech.
2. That the outrageous things he says is merely entertainment and only an idiot would take them seriously. For example, Trump sued Bill Maher for saying he had Orangutans as parent. He lost as that was satire. Shock Jocks have often effectively used this defense.
3. The Sandy Hook victims parents are public people as a result of the publicity directed at them so malice is required.

Freedom of speech and press is extremely important and I'm hesitant to hamper them in any way. But
Jones's actions cross the line. They have resulted in harassment of those families and it was foreseeable that would happen.

The courts need to refine their definitions of media, a public person and satire/entertainment vs news/opinions.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:57 AM   #8
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
RE: His controversial idea was heliocentrism.

Yes, you are right. Thank you for fishing that one out. It is amazing how your mind plays games with you when you are quickly writing up something in a social context.

Galileo is one of my all times heroes: Imagine Assange, Einstein and Chomsky into one!

// __ Galileo's Battle for the heavens HD 1080p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCxkdR092c4
~
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:58 AM   #9
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,897
Just looking at the title for the moment and not the word salad, whom did they go after other than Alex Jones?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:03 PM   #10
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,254
Originally Posted by gregthehammer View Post
first, they went after Alex Jones, and I said nothing.
Then, they came for ...
then...
Then they came for me

??
First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out

Because "they" were individual people and entities

And they "came for" him by making their own choices about how to exercise their own speech and association

And that's liberty, not tyranny
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:15 PM   #11
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,393
How did they go after Alex Jones? He wasn't arrested. The government hasn't done a thing to him. Private companies decided that they didn't want his content.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:21 PM   #12
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,719
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How did they go after Alex Jones? He wasn't arrested. The government hasn't done a thing to him. Private companies decided that they didn't want his content.
Nonsense it is all the demons who infest Hillary Clinton(she smells strongly of sulfur after all) have clearly taken over the bodies of all these supposed companies to silence the truth.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:24 PM   #13
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,645
I've seen this nonsense all over social media lately. "If they take away Alex Jones then what else will they take away?"

Answer: Hopefully anyone that drives the parent of a child killed in school massacre to contemplate ending themselves because of harassing phone calls.

I also saw someone peddling the, "Social media is now the town square. People shouldn't be banned from it without taking away all of their rights."
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:31 PM   #14
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,655
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
blah snipped

They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?

more blah snipped
.
You left out the part about the media sites involved being private businesses - there is no free speech issue involved.

TPTB can ban any ISF member for any reason and it's not any sort of Constitutional question.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:40 PM   #15
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak, because the fluoruide in the water had left me in a docile, near vegetative state, easily controlled by the government
--Comfortably Smug on twitter
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:41 PM   #16
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,719
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I've seen this nonsense all over social media lately. "If they take away Alex Jones then what else will they take away?"

Answer: Hopefully anyone that drives the parent of a child killed in school massacre to contemplate ending themselves because of harassing phone calls.

I also saw someone peddling the, "Social media is now the town square. People shouldn't be banned from it without taking away all of their rights."
But where is free speech if you can not amusingly harass grieving parents? That is the whole point of the first amendment after all. Its there for the LULZ.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:43 PM   #17
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,790
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How did they go after Alex Jones? He wasn't arrested. The government hasn't done a thing to him. Private companies decided that they didn't want his content.
I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so big that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.

As I stated elsewhere, Jones/Infowars may be some of the biggest and most influential conspiracy mongers out there, but they are far from the only ones and conspiracy mongering videos make up a big hunk of YT's content. Why ban him but leave the others alone? Did YT make this decision on an ad-hoc basis?

I would love to see FB, Twitter and YT develop some standard for truthfulness in content. To structure the idea that some CT's are so departed from the truth that they have no place in social media, even if they don't quite rise to the level of slander. But do it in a structured way. FB already has pretty good guidelines for hate speech and comes under a lot of pressure to weed out or flag false information as well - that's a start. Let's see if that can be pushed forward to reduce crazy conspiracy mongering access to social media without being arbitrary or capricious about it, without doing it in a way that invites attacks on other non-mainstream groups or beliefs that are generally harmless.

I would love to see these guys removed from the popular social media outlets - but make sure to do it in a way that is fair and transparent. I always think about what could happen if the shoe were on the other foot, if the Noam Chomskys and Black Lives Matters and Antifa groups of the world started getting banned instead.

Then again, social media outlets change and appear and disappear pretty quickly, the tech is ever changing. Maybe it defies any sort of content self policing that way.

Does this make any sense? Am I totally overthinking again?

Last edited by crescent; 9th August 2018 at 01:04 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 12:47 PM   #18
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,719
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so bit that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.
That is one hell of a slippery slope.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:02 PM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,361
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You left out the part about the media sites involved being private businesses - there is no free speech issue involved.
No, this is wrong. There is no first amendment issue involved, but that doesn't mean that there is no free speech issue involved. Free speech is a larger concept than just the first amendment.

The fact that it's a private business is relevant because private businesses should have freedom of association. But even if that right is more important here, we shouldn't pretend that freedom of speech isn't implicated in any way. It still is.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:03 PM   #20
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,773
Never mind. Life's too short.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

Last edited by fagin; 9th August 2018 at 01:05 PM.
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:07 PM   #21
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,753
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, this is wrong. There is no first amendment issue involved, but that doesn't mean that there is no free speech issue involved. Free speech is a larger concept than just the first amendment.

The fact that it's a private business is relevant because private businesses should have freedom of association. But even if that right is more important here, we shouldn't pretend that freedom of speech isn't implicated in any way. It still is.
Yeah, it's a free speech issue when they wipe graffiti off their railroad cars too! Let's broaden that brush, broaden it good and wide!

ETA: why I am I suddenly picturing Mr. Douglas standing on a soapbox lecturing bewildered Hootervillians, while patriotic music plays?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 9th August 2018 at 01:10 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:09 PM   #22
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,361
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
As I stated elsewhere, Jones/Infowars may be some of the biggest and most influential conspiracy mongers out there, but they are far from the only ones and conspiracy mongering videos make up a big hunk of YT's content. Why ban him but leave the others alone? Did YT make this decision on an ad-hoc basis?
Of course they did it ad-hoc. The timing demonstrates that pretty well.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:12 PM   #23
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,361
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Yeah, it's a free speech issue when they wipe graffiti off their railroad cars too!
Yes, it is. In that case, free speech conflicts with property rights, and property rights justifiably win. In this case, free speech conflicts with freedom of association. And you can argue that freedom of association should win here. Recognizing the existence of a free speech issue doesn't mean you always have to side against any restriction on that speech. When different freedoms conflict, speech doesn't always win.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:14 PM   #24
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,753
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, it is. In that case, free speech conflicts with property rights, and property rights justifiably win. In this case, free speech conflicts with freedom of association. And you can argue that freedom of association should win here. Recognizing the existence of a free speech issue doesn't mean you always have to side against any restriction on that speech. When different freedoms conflict, speech doesn't always win.
I would argue that since they own the server, it is also property rights in the case under discussion.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:48 PM   #25
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I would argue that since they own the server, it is also property rights in the case under discussion.

IANAL, but I should think so, since unauthorized access to a server is legally considered to be trespassing. Jones can set up his own Crap Shop in the town square, but other merchants aren't obliged to let him use their shop.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:50 PM   #26
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,745
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so big that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.
Given that these companies are now multi-nationals, what gives the US constitution any more power over them than any other countries laws? Why should the US 1st Amendment win out over much of the EU's Hate Speech laws?

Quote:
As I stated elsewhere, Jones/Infowars may be some of the biggest and most influential conspiracy mongers out there, but they are far from the only ones and conspiracy mongering videos make up a big hunk of YT's content. Why ban him but leave the others alone? Did YT make this decision on an ad-hoc basis?
It had nothing to do with him spouting CT's, but rather that there were complaints about his CT's violating the YT ToS, specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses.


[Edited to add] What people have to realise is that YT and FB are businesses that survive on advertising, and more and more, advertisers don't want their adverts being associated with certain things, which is leading to, especially on YT, videos being pulled and demonetized for quite minor things. One channel I watch, ThegnThrand, who is involved in the study and testing of historical weapons, had his channel removed due to old videos that involved Ninja Fire Pots. Without the rallying around of the HEMA YT Community, a petition that gained over 50,000 signatures in 48 hours, and the dedicated work of a couple of other YTubers who managed to get a YouTube staffer to look into the matter, he could have lost the channel forever. In this case it was reinstated after a living person got involved. But the fact is that YT is very quick to can a channel if they either get complaints or the video triggers their algorithms. Jones really was lucky to have survived as long as he did.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 9th August 2018 at 03:00 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:53 PM   #27
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
Shapiro and Jones had been at each other throats from some time already, but I respect Shapiro for still being able to see that it is wrong to ban him and thoroughly articulate why:

// __ Ben Shapiro REACTS to ALEX JONES' Banning: "He's a Crazy Liar But He Shouldn't Be Banned"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQmgWVIPM00
~
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:59 PM   #28
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:05 PM   #29
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 15,592
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post


They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?
Um, he had his own site long before he branched out to social media. And he still has it. The USG has nothing to do with any of this.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:07 PM   #30
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,745
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.
There is no way to codify "Be civil and polite" either, but that is Rule 0 of this board's ToS and plenty of people have been banned for repeated breaches of it. It's up to the staff of the organisation to interpret the rules of that Organisation, and as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:11 PM   #31
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right? At least make your sarcasm a little plain, because there are many people who think like that. Some people actually believe O'Reilly was removed as one of the most followed U.S. prestitudes for looking at a co-worker's butt.
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:15 PM   #32
rlopez2
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 151
RE: ... as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated

That is exactly my point how can you do that "consistently"? Explain to me philosophically or specifically if you want. To me it is like saying you can codify what truth be. How on earth can we mere mortal do that?
rlopez2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:29 PM   #33
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,809
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I also saw someone peddling the, "Social media is now the town square. People shouldn't be banned from it without taking away all of their rights."
So let's put Jones in the stocks, tar and feather him or run him out of town on a rail. These are classic town square ways to deal with Jones.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:42 PM   #34
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,773
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
RE: ... as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated

That is exactly my point how can you do that "consistently"? Explain to me philosophically or specifically if you want. To me it is like saying you can codify what truth be. How on earth can we mere mortal do that?
Please try and learn the quote function - it's a simple button.

Mere mortals have to do everything. The immortals are fictional characters.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:49 PM   #35
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,935
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right?

Um ... Do you have any evidence that the federal government actually was involved in banning Jones from FB and YouTube?

I don't know of any. The last time I looked, the chief executive of the US was a big Alex Jones fan.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:11 PM   #36
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,452
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right? At least make your sarcasm a little plain, because there are many people who think like that. Some people actually believe O'Reilly was removed as one of the most followed U.S. prestitudes for looking at a co-worker's butt.
Would you care to produce evidence beyond your silly little incredulity that either, the government had anything to do with removing Jones from YouTube or Facebook or O'Reilly wasn't fired for exposing Fox News to significant liability from sexual harassment lawsuits? Those allegations go far beyond looking at a co-worker's butt by the way.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:13 PM   #37
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,452
Originally Posted by rlopez2 View Post
RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.
Are you suggesting a private company should be compelled to keep people they don't want and damage their brand on their platforms? Where, in all its articles does the constitution say that you have a right to a YouTube channel? I'll be needing chapter and verse please.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:22 PM   #38
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,590
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Are you suggesting a private company should be compelled to keep people they don't want and damage their brand on their platforms? Where, in all its articles does the constitution say that you have a right to a YouTube channel? I'll be needing chapter and verse please.

I think I saw a tweet where someone tried to discredit all of the "Facebook is a private company and can make whatever rules it wants" arguments by "revealing" the fact that Facebook is publicly traded. The tweet had quite a self-satisfied tone to it, but of course it went over about as well as you might expect.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:25 PM   #39
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,756
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, this is wrong. There is no first amendment issue involved, but that doesn't mean that there is no free speech issue involved. Free speech is a larger concept than just the first amendment.

The fact that it's a private business is relevant because private businesses should have freedom of association. But even if that right is more important here, we shouldn't pretend that freedom of speech isn't implicated in any way. It still is.
Ok then, how about making Fox News present a liberal viewpoint?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:26 PM   #40
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so big that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.
We may need a revision of the radio and TV broadcasters Equal-time rule or some similar rule to stop the large new media companies from unfairly discriminating against the candidate(s) they don't like.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.