[SpecialOlympian]

Sounds like Facebook is really bringing the hammer down then.

[skinster]

This isn't new and it will continue.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Bulaba Jones is the world authority in these matters so I guess that settles it.

What part of my post do you disagree with exactly? The entire post made no appeal to emotion whatsoever. I argued entirely based on the legal aspect involved. I don't see how you can disagree with the statement that those websites are privately owned. Facebook.com is not a public forum: the definition of public forum in the US does not include privately-owned websites, and probably does not include public websites since there are meeting places in the US in public facilities that don't count as public forums.

If you want to stay on a privately-owned website, you shouldn't keep violating its TOS.

If you like Alex Jones, you should be upset with him for being stupid enough to keep breaking the TOS of websites he was promoting himself on, not those companies who decided to enforce their own company policies after, in some cases, months or years of repeated violations.

For example: if you're a Nazi and you're using Facebook, talking about persecuting Jews is going to break the TOS and get you banned, so if you're smart, you'll avoid saying those things. If you're a Communist, you probably want to avoid discussing overthrowing the government because that's going to get you banned most likely. And so on. Alex Jones wasn't smart enough to avoid harassing people about dead children and that's what led to his own ban. It's very simple.

[Albert]

This is not privately motivated though, Facebook and other big social media platforms have been facing pressure to clamp down on people like this, aka fake news, aka dissenting voices. The pressure comes from the governments and establishment politicians, in USA it is particularly the democrats.

Alex Jones is just an easy well known target to display as an example as to why they are doing it because everyone knows his a wing-nut, but with him there is a lot of other people that are already banned or could get banned in the future. For example, Tommy Robinson (a great hero) has already been banned from most social platforms.

Jones, your argument is rooted in emotion. You support this because it benefits your political camp, you are rationalizing this not reasoning.

[colliric]

Gosh, why would I want to censor every right winger if what Albert says is true? These unhinged lunatics will doom us all if given power.

They ARE in power now.... We've taken the Whitehouse again....

Deal with it.

Cant wait to see Trump use this going into the Midterms then 2020.

You people have shot yourselfs in the foot again. Trump's anti-msm message already delivered in 2016. Thanks for ensuring the next term guys.... Now watch as Facebook becomes externally regulated.

Coming soon to a court near you..... "Antitrust 2: The Facebook"

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I pay absolutely no attention to Alex Jones whatsoever. I don't visit his site and all I hear about him comes from PoFo exclusively. He isn't a blip on my political radar. The fact is that he broke the TOS of multiple platforms and they finally decided to remove him. They were pressured into looking into it by people asking why they were being so lenient with him. His banning is entirely his own fault, however. If you don't want to get banned, you can't keep breaking rules.

I don't care who is or isn't banned from FB, Twitter, and all those places.

[colliric]

Policing Facebook is more important to you than taking back the Whitehouse.... That much is certain.

Vladimir Putin is laughing at this...

Alex Jones gets attacked online by Zuckerberg, and you can bet your bottom dollar The Democrats won't get back the Whitehouse anytime soon.....

Trump - "I told you it was us versus them(his last campaign slogan online)"

[Sivad]

This is not the first time I've seen a leftist news source or activist on Facebook have their page removed.

I guess everyone forgot that stupid PropOrNot bullshit that the fake news establishment propganda outlets like the Washington Post were pushing a while back.

Andrew Cockburn, Washington editor for Harper's, was sharply critical of The Washington Post's decision to put the story on its front page, calling the article a "sorry piece of trash."[1] Writers in The Intercept, Fortune, and Rolling Stone criticized The Washington Post for including a report by an organization with no reputation for fact-checking in an article on "fake news."[8][9][10] The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton were particularly critical of the inclusion of Naked Capitalism on the list of "useful idiots" for Russian propagandists.[8]

Later, in The New Yorker, Adrian Chen said that he had been previously contacted by the organization, but had chosen not to follow up with them. Looking more carefully into their methodology, he argued that PropOrNot's criteria for establishing propaganda were so broad that they could have included "not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself" on their list.[3]

Writing for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi questioned the methodology used by PropOrNot and the lack of information about who was behind the organization.[10]

In December 2016, The Washington Post appended an "Editor's Note" to its article in response to the criticism of PropOrNot's list of websites.[2] The note read, "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."[4]

This has nothing to do with deplatforming bad actors, Alex Jones was just a convenient idiot they could use to test the waters and set the precedent, but it's gonna have to go full stupid before people figure that out. If they do ever figure it out, most people are hopeless fucking lames.

[Albert]

Why was Zuckerberg at Capitol Hill a while back getting grilled by mostly democratic congressman and women? Just for fun? They grilled him about "fake news" and privacy concerns. Facebook like may other big social media platforms work with government agencies to police the internet for national security reasons. The government is most likely the one that requires social platforms to collect data on individuals. Yet they threw this in his face for potential liability.

They basically blackmailed Zuckerberg and other large social media platforms to get inline and play ball even if it cost them money in the end or else the establishment will go after them. They got the message and are playing ball now, even though it is costing them money.

The establishment is waging a full blown out war on its own people as they are freaked out about this populist wave. Talking about election meddling, they sure are showing us how it is actually done.

[Sivad]

Why was Zuckerberg at Capitol Hill a while back getting grilled by mostly democratic congressman and women? Just for fun? They grilled him about "fake news" and privacy concerns.

That was all staged bullshit. The democrats belong to the tech oligarchs, the DNC is their creature. The tech companies want to shut down critics of the establishment more than anyone because it's their establishment, they own it, they are the establishment. That little dog and pony show on the Hill was just for pr and political cover, it let the tech giants do what they always intended to do but now they can claim they had no choice and they're just acting as responsible corporate citizens.

[colliric]

Talking about election meddling, they sure are showing us how it is actually done.

Except of cause it's blowing up in their face. Trump is going to have a field day going into 2020.

He's going to double-down with the fuel they've given him and everyone knows it.

They're turning his last campaign slogan, which was "It's us vs them"(rolled it out online just a few weeks out from the election) into reality and they don't even know it.

[Albert]

That was all staged bullshit. The democrats belong to the tech oligarchs, the DNC is their creature. The tech companies want to shut down critics of the establishment more than anyone because it's their establishment, they own it, they are the establishment. That little dog and pony show on the Hill was just for pr and political cover, it let the tech giants do what they always intended to do but now they can claim they had no choice and they're just acting as responsible corporate citizens.

Perhaps that could be true as well.

Except of cause it's blowing up in their face. Trump is going to have a field day going into 2020.

He's going to double-down with the fuel they've given him and everyone knows it.

They're turning his last campaign slogan, which was "It's us vs them"(rolled it out online just a few weeks out from the election) into reality and they don't even know it.

"It is rigged!"

Yes, it will most likely blow back in their faces, considering that people from both right-left spectrum are opposing this ban and internet purge.

[SpecialOlympian]

Things conservatives on PoFo have said will singlehandedly stop the blue wave and drive voters to the polls:

-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning a primary
-Alex Jones getting deplatformed
-The cancellation of the Roseanne reboot

[Sivad]

What part of my post do you disagree with exactly?

Let's apply that line of thinking to another issue and see if it holds up:

The bottom line is that the means of production are privately owned. They are not socially owned where everyone is entitled to the full product of their labor. They all admitted that the workers violated each of their TOS multiple times by striking and they were clearly very, very lenient for a long time, but enough was enough.

Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean it's right or proper, or even acceptable for things to be that way. I shouldn't have to explain that to someone who claims to be a socialist but apparently I do.

[Albert]

Communist do not understand the principle of rule of law, to them it is stupid if anything. If it was them as the establishment right now the populist will be either executed or send to "reeducation camps".

[Libertarian353]

Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean it's right or proper, or even acceptable for things to be that way. I shouldn't have to explain that to someone who claims to be a socialist but apparently I do.

So by that logic, I can come in to your house, steel your stuff and vandalize your house. Sure it's your property and you make the rules, but it doesn't mean it's right or proper.

It wasn't proper for Alex Jones to sue the families and made them fear for their lives. You apparently value his right of "free speech", more than the families right to life and privacy.

@Albert

Alex should be in jail for harassment. Apparently the law is for suckers.

[Zagadka]

Communist do not understand the principle of rule of law, to them it is stupid if anything. If it was them as the establishment right now the populist will be either executed or send to "reeducation camps".

This statement is confusing to me. One of those subjects is clearly incorrect in your definition.

[colliric]

How long has Albert has his yellow card for? It feels like more than a week at this point. Will a mod kindly PM him and tell him how to get rid of it?

Can you get rid of that ugly Fruit Bat you've got in your avatar?

Should be a "Humans only" avatar rule.

Go back to your old one, that was much better anyway.

More from Jimmy.

https://www.afr.com/technology/apps/inf ... 810-h13sc7

Lol, Jones bottom line ain't gonna be hurt by this at all.

Sue the bastards!

[Bulaba edit: Posts merged, use the "edit" button instead of double posting]

[jessupjonesjnr87]

@Bulaba Jones is at least making an argument utilizing facts, and not making a purely emotional argument.

Who's making a purely emotional argument?

As a private company Facebook can ban whoever they like as long as it's not discrimination, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have that right but by banning Jones they have shown that they are actively using their Social media brand to push certain political views and should be called out on this and boycotted for it.

It's also strange that all these different Internet companies such as Facebook and youtube banned Info Wars in such a tight time period.

Alex Jones is a clown, I watched him for comic relief more than anything else but I am a great believer in government deception and because of Jones so are many more people who wouldn't be had it not been for Info Wars.

Let's not forget that one of the greatest conflicts of our time was kickstarted by a false flag attack when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@Sivad my argument had nothing to do with what's right or what would be better in a perfect world; in a perfect world, there would be no such disputes. The law does not define social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc as public forums: these privately-owned websites do not fall in the category of a public forum. You do not have an innate right to use those websites. Your use of those websites is a privilege conditional to their respective TOS/rules and policies.

I do see a lot of emotionalism in this thread concerning his banning. One example would be a lot of heavy-handed emotional exaggeration and hyperbole in responses to some people, including me (I have no investment either way concerning Alex Jones, and I made no personal comment about him beyond pointing out he was indeed stupid to continually violate a private website's TOS if he didn't want to end up banned, which is something a rational person would avoid doing) despite not caring whether he's banned or not. It's pretty silly.

If people would like to cool down, relax, breathe, and act a bit calmly and not get so defensive/angry for no reason, I have yet to see a good argument for why he shouldn't have been banned. I don't mean how someone thinks he shouldn't have been banned because that person likes Alex Jones, or how banning him has boosted his popularity (the people who banned him don't care about that, and popularity should not factor into an administrative decision like banning someone). I'm honestly curious whether anyone here has a sound argument for why someone who uses a social media platform and routinely breaks serious rules of their TOS, including harassment, should be allowed to slide around consequences indefinitely?

My question above is genuine: please refrain from emotional outbursts in responding, if anyone has a logical response to that in the affirmative.

It's also strange that all these different Internet companies such as Facebook and youtube banned Info Wars in such a tight time period.

It's a PR thing. From what I recall, Spotify censored some of his content, but then another platform banned him entirely, so to look good, the others followed suit. In each case, he had violated their TOS, but they chose now to ban him only because others were doing it first.