Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Jones got banned from FB!

No one is stopping the twat saying what he wants on his own website which can be accessed by anyone around the world.

Ahh the megaphone.. yes. He is censored from mainstream corporate media though... and it appears his case presents the justification for corporate censorship that is being imposed on left wing political activists :/

Two weeks ago, we learned about a new campaign against “inauthentic” content, conducted by Facebook in consultation with Congress and the secretive think tank Atlantic Council — whose board includes an array of ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials — in the name of cracking down on alleged Russian disinformation efforts. As part of the bizarre alliance of Internet news distributors and quasi-government censors, the social network zapped 32 accounts and pages, including an ad for a real “No Unite the Right 2” anti-racist counter-rally in D.C. this past weekend.

Activists push back on Facebook’s decision to remove a DC protest event
 
Last edited:
He can/should be prosecuted for incitement etc, doesn't mean we have to let the tech company censorship genie out of the bottle. I suggest you read the article I posted, it reveals some very alarming details about what is going on and who is behind this censorship and for what 'reasons'.
 
[Last week, we saw another flurry of censorship news. Facebook apparently suspended VenezuelaAnalysis.com, a site critical of U.S. policy toward Venezuela. (It was reinstated Thursday.)

More significantly: Google’s former head of free expression issues in Asia, Lokman Tsui, blasted the tech giant’s plan to develop a search engine that would help the Chinese government censor content.

First reported by The Intercept, the plan was called “a stupid, stupid move” by Tsui, who added: “I can’t see a way to operate Google search in China without violating widely held international human rights standards.” This came on the heels of news that the Israeli Knesset passed a second reading of a “Facebook bill,” authorizing courts to delete content on security grounds.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Both the Jones situation and the Facebook-Atlantic Council deletions seem an effort to fulfill a request made last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last October, Facebook, Google and Twitter were asked by Hawaii Senator Mazie Hizono to draw up a “mission statement” to “prevent the foment of discord.”

After Trump’s shocking win in 2016, everyone turned to Facebook and Google to fix “fake news.” But nobody had a coherent definition of what constitutes it.

Many on the left lamented the Wikileaks releases of Democratic Party emails, but those documents were real news, and the complaint there was more about the motives of sources, and editorial emphasis, rather than accuracy.

When Google announced it was tightening its algorithm to push “more authoritative content” last April, it defined “fake news” as “…blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.”

Soviet-era author Isaac Babel once said the only right Stalin had taken away was “writing badly.” He was joking. Google was apparently serious about targeting “low quality.” What exactly does that mean?

It isn’t clear, but within short order, a whole range of alternative sites (from Alternet to Truthdig to the World Socialist Website) started complaining about significant drops in traffic, apparently thanks to changed search processes.

Within a year, Google bragged that it had deleted 8 million videos from YouTube. A full 6.7 million videos were caught by machines, 1.1 million by YouTube’s own “trusted flaggers” (we’re pre-writing the lexicon of the next dystopian novels), and 400,000 by “normal users.”

Subsequently, we heard that Facebook was partnering with the Atlantic Council — which, incidentally, accepts donations from at least 25 different foreign countries, including United Arab Emirates and the king of Bahrain, in addition to firms like weapons manufacturer Raytheon and my old pals at HSBC — to identify “potential abuse.”]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The power of Facebook to spread truly damaging fake news is really quite depressing. People have been killed or had their lives destroyed by that out of control machine.
 
[This is the nuance people are missing. It’s not that people like Jones shouldn’t be punished; it’s the means of punishment that has changed radically.

For more than half a century, we had an effective, if slow, litigation-based remedy for speech violations. The standards laid out in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan were designed to protect legitimate reporting while directly remunerating people harmed by bad speech. Sooner or later, people like Alex Jones would always crash under crippling settlements. Meanwhile, young reporters learned to steer clear of libel and defamation. Knowing exactly what we could and could not get away with empowered us to do our jobs, confident that the law had our backs.

If the line of defense had not been a judge and jury but a giant transnational corporation working with the state, journalists taking on banks or tech companies or the wrong politicians would have been playing intellectual Russian roulette. In my own career, I’d have thought twice before taking on a company like Goldman Sachs. Any reporter would.

Now the line is gone. Depending on the platform, one can be banned for “glorifying violence,” “sowing division,” “hateful conduct” or even “low quality,” with those terms defined by nameless, unaccountable executives, working with God Knows Whom.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[The platforms will win popular support for removals by deleting jackasses like Jones. Meanwhile, the more dangerous censorship will go on in the margins with fringe opposition sites — and in the minds of reporters and editors, who will unconsciously start retreating from wherever their idea of the line is.

The most ominous development involves countries asking for direct cleansing of opposition movements, a la China’s search engine, or Tel Aviv’s demands that Facebook and Google delete pages belonging to Palestinian activists. (This happened: Israel’s justice minister said last year that Facebook granted 95 percent of such requests.)

Google and Facebook have long wrestled with the question of how to operate in politically repressive markets — Google launched a censored Chinese search engine in 2006, before changing its mind in 2010 — but it seems we’re seeing a kind of mass surrender on that front.

The apparent efforts to comply with government requests to help “prevent the foment of discord” suggest the platforms are moving toward a similar surrender even in the United States. The duopolistic firms seem anxious to stay out of headlines, protect share prices and placate people like Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who just said deleting Jones was only a “good first step.”

Americans are not freaking out about this because most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between general principles and political outcomes. So long as the “right” people are being zapped, no one cares.

But we should care. Censorship is one of modern man’s great temptations. Giving in to it hasn’t provided many happy stories.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The power of Facebook to spread truly damaging fake news is really quite depressing. People have been killed or had their lives destroyed by that out of control machine.

Is this not just some adjustment phase society is going through?
 
I don't find Jimmy Dore compelling at all. The argument that bad speech is countered with good speech is so simplistic it beggars belief; it completely ignores structural relations and oppression.

I will say that I am uncomfortable with silencing people. However I do not believe that Alex Jones is a good faith operator, he is a fascist enabler and na instigator of violence. He has called repeatedly for violence against people he disagrees with. This is is MO. The treatment of the Sand Hook survivors and families is beyond disgusting. I hope they sue the fat cunt for every fucking nickel and leave him dead in the gutter, frankly.

However he has power; he is VERY popular. Popular enough for some clown with a machine gun to front up to a pizza restaurant to 'investigate' the truth about alleged child rape!

This is not free speech. This is hate speech. It is not countered by facts, if it were the above wouldn't be happening. This is the Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens ideology. It presumes a level playing field because rich white privileged people are the ones advocating this position. When Jimmy Dore advocates this he ignores the fact that Jones, essentially a scam artist hawking survivalist products on air, supports the ascendant right+white+christian+guns. That's a toxic combination. But when confronted with facts - even from someone as vile as Piers Morgan - he plays the victim card, before loudly shitting his pants.

This is a problem. I agree with the likes of Michael Brooks and Sam Seder who argue that the problem isn't so much that cunts like AJ get shut down, but with the notion that social media, which should be considered a modern day part of the commons (we all need internet access), should not be privately owned. I would have no problem with a communally owned horizontally run social media space telling Jones to eat a bag of dogshit instead of giving him a platform. I am not comfortable with hispter wankers like Jack Dorsey deciding who gets to speak. Especially when NONE of these organisations have a proven track record of anything but hypocrisy. YouTube will ban people for speaking out AGAINST oppression whiel continuing to allow thundercunts like Sargon, Bearing, Stefan Molyneux, Katie fucking Hopkins, Lauren Souther, Paul Joseph Cuntface, and any other of these tedious fact-ignoring human-migraines to spew their UTTER hatred. For money.

And of course Tommy Robinscum.
I assume you are anti-capitalist, or atleast anti- neo liberal. Why then would you agree to giant corporate monopolies silencing you and those who think like you? It just doesn't make any sense.
 
I just don't understand a lot of this, they're private businesses. A private business will always have one aim and that is to turn as much profit as is possible. If a landlord wants to ban someone from his pub then that's his business (literally).
 
What if the landlord stops black, Jewish, or Irish people drinking in their pub ?
 
What if the landlord stops black, Jewish, or Irish people drinking in their pub ?

tbh I'm a bit uneasy with the laws we have around this sort of thing in the UK. As satisfying as it is when you here about some bigots being convicted because they wouldn't serve a gay couple I think I'd rather the law doesn't get involved in this sort of thing. I'd rather appropriate boycotts etc would do the job.
 
tbh I'm a bit uneasy with the laws we have around this sort of thing in the UK. As satisfying as it is when you here about some bigots being convicted because they wouldn't serve a gay couple I think I'd rather the law doesn't get involved in this sort of thing. I'd rather appropriate boycotts etc would do the job.
That's a recipe for minorities getting screwed over.
 
tbh I'm a bit uneasy with the laws we have around this sort of thing in the UK. As satisfying as it is when you here about some bigots being convicted because they wouldn't serve a gay couple I think I'd rather the law doesn't get involved in this sort of thing. I'd rather appropriate boycotts etc would do the job.

Oh gosh no ! Really ? As things stand IMO private power need`s to be kept in check by regulation.... think environment and slavery .
 
[The platforms will win popular support for removals by deleting jackasses like Jones. Meanwhile, the more dangerous censorship will go on in the margins with fringe opposition sites — and in the minds of reporters and editors, who will unconsciously start retreating from wherever their idea of the line is.

The most ominous development involves countries asking for direct cleansing of opposition movements, a la China’s search engine, or Tel Aviv’s demands that Facebook and Google delete pages belonging to Palestinian activists. (This happened: Israel’s justice minister said last year that Facebook granted 95 percent of such requests.)

Google and Facebook have long wrestled with the question of how to operate in politically repressive markets — Google launched a censored Chinese search engine in 2006, before changing its mind in 2010 — but it seems we’re seeing a kind of mass surrender on that front.

The apparent efforts to comply with government requests to help “prevent the foment of discord” suggest the platforms are moving toward a similar surrender even in the United States. The duopolistic firms seem anxious to stay out of headlines, protect share prices and placate people like Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who just said deleting Jones was only a “good first step.”

Americans are not freaking out about this because most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between general principles and political outcomes. So long as the “right” people are being zapped, no one cares.

But we should care. Censorship is one of modern man’s great temptations. Giving in to it hasn’t provided many happy stories.]

Let's say you're one of the Sandy Hook parents, and you've been forced to move home 7 times due to death threats and harassment which are a direct consquence of Alex Jones's speech. What's your solution?
 
Your last 2 posts contradict each-other. I don't think the penny has dropped. Read the thread. :)

It is disturbing how quick people are to advocate corporate censorship ! Shit... if it works on the clever people here... they have it nailed!
 
Last edited:
Your last 2 posts contradict each-other. I don't think the penny has dropped. Read the thread. :)

It is disturbing how quick people are to advocate corporate censorship ! Shit... if it works on the clever people here... they have it nailed!
If I have said something contradictory then by all means point it out. I'm not interested in playing games.

I specifically said that I'm uncomfortable with what happened, but that certain speech must be subject to rules. You cant just go around accusing people of child abuse, or causing murder victims' families to be harassed ffs.

I also stated that I don't want corporate control of social media. So i'm at a loss to understand the hypocrisy
 
Let's say you're one of the Sandy Hook parents, and you've been forced to move home 7 times due to death threats and harassment which are a direct consquence of Alex Jones's speech. What's your solution?
I guess the only step to take would be to take legal action which I believe is what they are doing.
 
If I have said something contradictory then by all means point it out. I'm not interested in playing games.

I specifically said that I'm uncomfortable with what happened, but that certain speech must be subject to rules. You cant just go around accusing people of child abuse, or causing murder victims' families to be harassed ffs.

I also stated that I don't want corporate control of social media. So i'm at a loss to understand the hypocrisy

Sorry if I have offended you somehow. It is just that the point has already been repeated Edit:11 times within this thread up to the point you posted that :)

You say you don`t want corporate control of social media ? I am saying that Alex Jones is being used to justify the control of corporate media .

Activists push back on Facebook’s decision to remove a DC protest event
 
Last edited:
I guess the only step to take would be to take legal action which I believe is what they are doing.
And you know how the US legal system is stacked in favour of the rich and the powerful? And how legal action can bankrupt poor people?

They shouldn't have to put up with any of this harassment and abuse.
 
The Atlantic Council are not the people we want to regulate corporate media ! They started with the excuse of Russian disinformation and are now using Alex Jones and the like to justify censoring left wing groups.

Many of the banned pages look like parodies of some paranoid bureaucrat’s idea of dangerous speech.

A page called “Black Elevation” shows a picture of Huey Newton and offers readers a job. “Aztlan Warriors” contains a meme celebrating the likes of Geronimo and Zapata, giving thanks for their service in the “the 500 year war against colonialism.”

And a banned “Mindful Being” page shared this, which seems culled from Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts bit:

“We must unlearn what we have learned because a conditioned mind cannot comprehend the infinite.”

Facebook also wiped out a “No Unite The Right 2” page, appearing to advertise a counter-rally on the upcoming anniversary of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom