Infowars one strike away from YouTube ban

[Machismo]

yeah, sure. i don't care about the sides in the issue, i care about the complete and total freedom of speech in public platforms, even if those platforms are owned by private entities.

it should be forced in totality. the only place it shouldn't really be forced is in someone's private home/yard. that's it.

Should a Christian website be forced to advertise porn?

[Daedius]

People can want anything they like, it doesn't mean they're going to get it.

My point was people preaching for them to make their own platforms, and when they do they still get harassed over it...

I am a firm advocate of being totally against censorship, because it can be easily abused.

[Thrive]

I don't take Alex Jones seriously but there are a lot of people who do. It's really hard to have a conversation with someone who believes wild conspiracy stories.

If I have any qualms at all its that once in a great while these kind of shows get it right but I can't think of an instance where they have gotten right at the moment.

Mostly the theories Alex Jones has gotten strikes for is saying the shooters at these schools were paid agents, something like this is reprehensible.






http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...om-youtube-ban





Conspiracy theory outlet Infowars is one strike away from being banned from YouTube.

The channel said it received an alert from YouTube on Tuesday morning, saying Infowars received a second strike on a video about the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting and will temporarily be unable to upload new content.

"This is the second strike applied to your account within three months. As a result, you're unable to post new content to YouTube for two weeks," the alert said. "If there are no further issues, the ability to upload will be automatically restored after this two week period."
Infowars's second strike comes as social media giants like YouTube and Twitter grapple with how to handle extremist or conspiracy theory content.

A channel that receives three strikes from YouTube within three months is banned from the platform. While Infowars has several other ways to promote its videos — including an online radio show, its own website, Twitter and Facebook — a ban would cut Infowars off from its YouTube subscribers, which number more than 2 million.

CNN reported last week that the channel, which is run by host and owner Alex Jones, had received its first strike for promoting a conspiracy theory about the Parkland shooting.

Infowars has referred to the strikes from YouTube as a "CNN lobbying campaign."

The first strike was related to a video targeting Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg, titled "David Hogg Can't Remember His Lines In TV Interview," and suggested Hogg and others were paid "crisis actors" instead of actual students who survived the shooting.

The video is no longer on YouTube.

Jones made similar claims after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Censorship is always wrong. Alex Jones is nutjob, but free speech is free speech and a private company silencing dissenting opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are, is wrong.

[szechuan]

This is what happens when a monopoly has an ideological bent.

Explain.

It can just silence those it disagrees with, ToS be damned. I don't watch Infowars and Alex Jones is a complete looney, but I don't want him silenced. I want his theories and stories debated, discussed, and where required debunked and ridiculed.

I'm confused, isn't misinformation dangerous?

[derpkitteh]

Should a Christian website be forced to advertise porn?

that's a different issue to me. that's social media.

twitter, youtube, and facebook are social media. those three are the only ones i would really focus on.

i would also punish companies with tax penalties for pulling ads from youtube.

[JohnBrown1917]

Haha thinking YT is doing this for idealogical reasons, its purely for the money. Make its more advertiser friendly.

[Endus]

It's a monopoly. There are multiple video hosting sites that no one has heard of because Youtube dominates the market.

There are still plenty of competitors, even if they aren't as big.

Is McDonald's a monopoly because Wendy's and Burger King aren't quite as big a presence? No. That's silly.

So conservative content creators have to continually suck it up and have their videos randomly demonetized and subscribers randomly vanish. Same can be said of Twitter. Funny how monopolies always take on a communistic hard left bent when they lack competition.

And now you enter looney-tunes bananas territory, by combining complaints of free market capitalist behaviour (monopolies) with accusations of being communist, unironically.

You have no idea what the words you're using even mean.

[JohnBrown1917]

that's a different issue to me. that's social media.

twitter, youtube, and facebook are social media. those three are the only ones i would really focus on.

i would also punish companies with tax penalties for pulling ads from youtube.

You want to live in a strange corporate dystopia.

[Thrive]

I see the Constitutional experts are out in full force in this thread.

God forbid we enable free speech.

[Machismo]

Censorship is always wrong. Alex Jones is nutjob, but free speech is free speech and a private company silencing dissenting opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are, is wrong.

I'll ask the same question to you. Should a Christian website be forced to advertise porn?

[Endus]

Censorship is always wrong. Alex Jones is nutjob, but free speech is free speech and a private company silencing dissenting opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are, is wrong.

Necessary reminder that Youtube isn't "silencing" anyone, just saying "not with our equipment and audience".

Jones is free to take his stuff anywhere else that will have him. If Jones can go stand on the street outside his offices and shout at passersby, he hasn't been "silenced".

If someone wants to call his wife and abuse her over the phone, and demands I give him my phone to let him do so, am I "censoring" him for refusing? Of course not. And yet, that's the argument you folks keep making.

[Daedius]

And? They control the platform and don't get banned from it do they? That's what the entire point of them making a platform was, not that it would create a safe space to be racist pieces of shit with no response. If they want to do THAT then they should make the platform a private, invite only kinda deal.

My point completely going well over your head. They make a platform, assholes will still keep harassing them for having that platform to begin it. See it plenty of times here, by the same idiots no less telling them to go make their own platforms.

Honestly hate these authoritarianism wantons of the so called liberals, just because they don't like it...

[Thrive]

Necessary reminder that Youtube isn't "silencing" anyone, just saying "not with our equipment and audience".

Jones is free to take his stuff anywhere else that will have him. If Jones can go stand on the street outside his offices and shout at passersby, he hasn't been "silenced".

They more or less have a monopoly, and if we are going to sit by and allow them to continue said monopoly there needs to be harsher restrictions. Lets not be dull to the reality of the market Youtube and Google control.

- - - Updated - - -

You can totally have freedom of speech, just as long as it's the right speech.

There is no such thing as right speech, there is just speech.

[Templar 331]

About time.

God forbid we enable free speech.

No one is taking away his free speech....

While Infowars has several other ways to promote its videos — including an online radio show, its own website, Twitter and Facebook

[derpkitteh]

You want to live in a strange corporate dystopia.

i want to live in a free speech utopia. where the god is free speech, and you are forced to at least respect it.

and i believe that this social engineering going on by rich people is getting out of hand. they're trying to control how we as a people behave by using money. they're pulling ads from anything "controversial" and it needs to be punished.

i don't respect corporations. i don't respect the rich. they need to be controlled, and i would control them.

[szechuan]

It's a monopoly.

What? Explain.

There are multiple video hosting sites that no one has heard of because Youtube dominates the market.

Of course, youtube is the most popular.

So conservative content creators have to continually suck it up and have their videos randomly demonetized and subscribers randomly vanish.

so why do you think they're getting demonetized exactly?

Same can be said of Twitter. Funny how monopolies always take on a communistic hard left bent when they lack competition.

How is twitter lacking in competition?

[Thrive]

I'll ask the same question to you. Should a Christian website be forced to advertise porn?

Generally speaking I'd agree, but as I stated to Endus websites such as Google and Youtube and even Amazon have more or a less a monopoly, and as such should be under harsher restrictions. If they want to ban all political talk, so be it, but as it stands there are conspiracy videos on Youtube and they are simply picking and choosing what they don't and don't want on.

[Lionhearte0]

31 indictments, 5 guilty pleas, and we're not even a year in yet.

nice, which of those involve russian collusion?

[Endus]

They more or less have a monopoly, and if we are going to sit by and allow them to continue said monopoly there needs to be harsher restrictions. Lets not be dull to the reality of the market Youtube and Google control.

There are competitors. Depending on content, a quick Google shows me Vimeo, Dailymotion, Twitch, LiveLeak, all with tens of millions of monthly visitors. And more smaller ones, which get millions of monthly visitors.

And regardless, this is still not an argument that you should attack Youtube's right to control their own services and their own speech. Which is what everyone is complaining about. By making up ludicrous conspiracy theories, no less. People aren't being banned for "being conservative", they're being banned for being abusive, or being assholes, or outright prejudiced in some way, or making threats. If those things, to you, are "conservative", then your interpretation of political ideology is grossly twisted, and that's not anyone's problem but yours.

[Machismo]

that's a different issue to me. that's social media.

twitter, youtube, and facebook are social media. those three are the only ones i would really focus on.

i would also punish companies with tax penalties for pulling ads from youtube.

That's not a different issue at all, you are simply being a hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -

I see the Constitutional experts are out in full force in this thread.

Are those "constitutional experts" actually wrong, or are you agreeing with us?

- - - Updated - - -

You can totally have freedom of speech, just as long as it's the right speech.

Once again, are those people wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

God forbid we enable free speech.

Trying to force the companies to show videos they don't want to is a limitation of free speech.