|
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. |
9th August 2018, 10:52 AM | #1 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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. |
9th August 2018, 10:54 AM | #2 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
Cool.
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
9th August 2018, 11:13 AM | #3 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
When you put it that way . . .
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
9th August 2018, 11:37 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
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 |
|
9th August 2018, 11:41 AM | #5 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 798
|
first, they went after Alex Jones, and I said nothing.
Then, they came for ... then... Then they came for me ?? |
9th August 2018, 11:42 AM | #6 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
What if they come for blathering windbags? Somebody's in dreadful danger.
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
9th August 2018, 11:55 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
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. |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
9th August 2018, 11:57 AM | #8 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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 ~ |
9th August 2018, 11:58 AM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
|
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. |
|
9th August 2018, 12:03 PM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
|
|
9th August 2018, 12:15 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
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.
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
9th August 2018, 12:21 PM | #12 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
9th August 2018, 12:24 PM | #13 |
Great minds think...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
|
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." |
__________________
“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 |
|
9th August 2018, 12:31 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
9th August 2018, 12:40 PM | #15 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,725
|
Quote:
|
9th August 2018, 12:41 PM | #16 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
9th August 2018, 12:43 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,718
|
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? |
9th August 2018, 12:47 PM | #18 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
9th August 2018, 01:02 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
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 |
|
9th August 2018, 01:03 PM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
Never mind. Life's too short.
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
9th August 2018, 01:07 PM | #21 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
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 |
|
9th August 2018, 01:09 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
9th August 2018, 01:12 PM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
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 |
|
9th August 2018, 01:14 PM | #24 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
9th August 2018, 02:48 PM | #25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
9th August 2018, 02:50 PM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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:
[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) |
|
9th August 2018, 02:53 PM | #27 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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 ~ |
9th August 2018, 02:59 PM | #28 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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. |
9th August 2018, 03:05 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 25,734
|
|
__________________
Current cheese: 2023 World Champion Cheese Nidelven Blå by Gangstad Gårdsysteri |
|
9th August 2018, 03:07 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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) |
|
9th August 2018, 03:11 PM | #31 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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. |
9th August 2018, 03:15 PM | #32 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 356
|
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? |
9th August 2018, 03:29 PM | #33 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
9th August 2018, 03:42 PM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
9th August 2018, 03:49 PM | #35 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
9th August 2018, 04:11 PM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
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.
|
9th August 2018, 04:13 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
9th August 2018, 04:22 PM | #38 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
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 |
|
9th August 2018, 04:25 PM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
9th August 2018, 04:26 PM | #40 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,298
|
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|