Alex Jones's channel deleted from YouTube ft. MUTV presenter appreciation

The distinction here is not about shares, but rather ownership.

Private = owned by private citizens.
Public = owned by the government.

All of these social media platforms are private, as in, they are not owned by a government. I thought this was a simple concept to understand.
 
Honest question, would the people saying "they're private companies, end of" being saying the same thing if Jeremy Corbyn/Labour's social media pages were suddenly deleted?
 
soap said:
Honest question, would the people saying "they're private companies, end of" being saying the same thing if Jeremy Corbyn/Labour's social media pages were suddenly deleted?
Click to expand...
If they were spouting the shite that AJ does then feck yes, why not? As they aren't, they haven't.
 
soap said:
Honest question, would the people saying "they're private companies, end of" being saying the same thing if Jeremy Corbyn/Labour's social media pages were suddenly deleted?
Click to expand...
Well firstly Corbyn and Labour would face real consequences if they came out and said "Grenville was a hoax" or something similar.

They would he censured by their own party, voted out of office, and shunned by society. They would lose everything. They wouldn't become millionaires by spewing hate and vitriol like Alex Jones did.

If they continued spewing fantastical bile and going after victims of a tragedy, I think all of the UK would rally behind their expulsion from YouTube etc.
 
soap said:
Honest question, would the people saying "they're private companies, end of" being saying the same thing if Jeremy Corbyn/Labour's social media pages were suddenly deleted?
Click to expand...
In this hypothetical, were they spewing the kind of shite that Alex Jones does while simultaneously breaking the T&C they had agreed to?

It's not like he got booted for nothing, you know.
 
Ramshock said:
how do people like this not get shot anymore?
Click to expand...

If they spout the amount of vitriol shit Jones does, of course. Which would be accusing May, Johnson and others of running a pedo ring and calling victims of Islamic terror crisis actors. After taking a closer look at what got Jones actually banned I'm a bit surprised it took them so long to kick him of these platforms, let alone that he isn't sued every other week for defamation.
 
Seems there's more than one person who doesn't know the difference between publicly traded and publicly (state) owned.


Doubling down on the stupidity, even.
 
The stable genius, president Trump, described Alex Jones as amazing.

The president of the United States called the man who said these following things amazing.

Let that sink in, folks.

1. Satanists are taking over America
2. Bill Gates is a eugenicist trying to wipe out minorities
3. The government is controlling the weather
4. Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a D.C.-area pizza restaurant
5. The government is complicit in countless terrorist and lone-gunman attacks
6. Millions of undocumented immigrants illegally voted in the election
7. Former Fox News host Glenn Beck is a CIA operative
8. Sandy Hook massacre was staged and a hoax.
 
Fridge chutney said:
The stable genius, president Trump, described Alex Jones as amazing.

The president of the United States called the man who said these following things amazing.

Let that sink in, folks.

1. Satanists are taking over America
2. Bill Gates is a eugenicist trying to wipe out minorities
3. The government is controlling the weather
4. Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a D.C.-area pizza restaurant
5. The government is complicit in countless terrorist and lone-gunman attacks
6. Millions of undocumented immigrants illegally voted in the election
7. Former Fox News host Glenn Beck is a CIA operative
8. Sandy Hook massacre was staged and a hoax.
Click to expand...
Alex Jones said good things about Trump, just like the Nazis at Charlottesville. Trump is unable to, in good conscience, do anything but offer praise in return.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this guy just an actor who's taken it too far anyway?

And whilst the likes of Facebook and Youtube are clearly dodgy with what they do and promote, I struggle to disagree that people who have got to this level and push dangerous trash should be fecked off out of it. Freedom of speech and all that is all well and good, but this moron is actively inciting hatred. Which is weird considering Trump isn't also banned.
 
This is why communism should have won. Purge these bitches.
 
Redlambs said:
Isn't this guy just an actor who's taken it too far anyway?

And whilst the likes of Facebook and Youtube are clearly dodgy with what they do and promote, I struggle to disagree that people who have got to this level and push dangerous trash should be fecked off out of it. Freedom of speech and all that is all well and good, but this moron is actively inciting hatred. Which is weird considering Trump isn't also banned.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that doesn't exist in private mediums. Blaming youtube (like a lot of people did) for this, is like blaming golden_blunder for banning people in Caf.
 
@afrocentricity @Halftrack @Fridge chutney

I'm not really asking if you think Alex Jones should have been banned or not, it's totally understandable if you think so. I'm asking if you think these huge social media giants should just be allowed to ban whoever they want, given that they're private entities?
 
soap said:
@afrocentricity @Halftrack @Fridge chutney

I'm not really asking if you think Alex Jones should have been banned or not, it's totally understandable if you think so. I'm asking if you think these huge social media giants should just be allowed to ban whoever they want, given that they're private entities?
Click to expand...
How can someone bad a private company from banning stuff they don't want to put in their platform. Youtube - like redcafe - cannot be banned from banning posters, and they don't even need to give a reason for doing so. While they have a code of conduct which if you break, they ban you, in principle they can ban you without a single reason. It is their property, their right.
 
Revan said:
How can someone bad a private company from banning stuff they don't want to put in their platform. Youtube - like redcafe - cannot be banned from banning posters, and they don't even need to give a reason for doing so. While they have a code of conduct which if you break, they ban you, in principle they can ban you without a single reason. It is their property, their right.
Click to expand...
Good, then you're entirely consistent. There's an argument to be made that Facebook/Twitter/YouTube should be treated as public utilities, because they are such integral parts of modern life, but I would really need to think a lot more about that to come to any sort of conclusion either way.

Alex Jones is nuts (or pretends to be for views, whatever), but let's assume this happened to someone who isn't a dickhead - I dunno, a hypothetical figurehead who'd amassed a huge following bringing attention to the problems caused by fracking or something gets deleted from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the same day. If that was to happen would it change anyone's way of thinking?
 
soap said:
Good, then you're entirely consistent. There's an argument to be made that Facebook/Twitter/YouTube should be treated as public utilities, because they are such integral parts of modern life, but I would really need to think a lot more about that to come to any sort of conclusion either way.
Click to expand...

There is an argument on that, I agree. But even on that argument, still the companies should be allowed to have their code of conduct, which if you break, you get banned. While this isn't the case, youtube doesn't ban anyone just for shit and giggles, instead it bans people from breaking their code of conduct. Otherwise, you'll have people posting extreme religious propaganda, massacres, pornography, hate speech there etc which is not what Alphabet (and most of youtube users) want. Same for Facebook/Twitter.

soap said:
Alex Jones is nuts (or pretends to be for views, whatever), but let's assume this happened to someone who isn't a dickhead - I dunno, a hypothetical figurehead who'd amassed a huge following bringing attention to the problems caused by fracking or something gets deleted from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the same day. If that was to happen would it change anyone's way of thinking?
Click to expand...

PewDiePie got banned from youtube for making anti-semitic jokes. He has the biggest number of subscribers and views in the history of youtube https://www.fraghero.com/pewdiepie-banned-youtube-network-making-anti-semitic-jokes/

While I find him an irritating idiot, unlike Alex Jones, he is quite harmless. Still, no one can say that the ban is unjustified, and no one can blame youtube for doing it. Their home, their rule, either respect it or get fecked (banned).
 
soap said:
Good, then you're entirely consistent. There's an argument to be made that Facebook/Twitter/YouTube should be treated as public utilities, because they are such integral parts of modern life, but I would really need to think a lot more about that to come to any sort of conclusion either way.

Alex Jones is nuts (or pretends to be for views, whatever), but let's assume this happened to someone who isn't a dickhead - I dunno, a hypothetical figurehead who'd amassed a huge following bringing attention to the problems caused by fracking or something gets deleted from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the same day. If that was to happen would it change anyone's way of thinking?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that he is being sued by families from Sandy Hook for publishing their personal information online along with his accusations of them as paid actors which is direct violation of rules and the internet norm of not doxxing.

For your fracking example to be the equivalent , the anti-fracker would have to be publishing the names, addresses and personal information of a group of oil company executives along with strong allegations about them faking an event where people died. If that happened, I'd bet ExxonMobile, Shell or Koch Industries would be getting that video pulled and hitting Jones/anti-fracker with a tonne of lawsuits much faster than happened here with just private citizens being exposed.
 
soap said:
Good, then you're entirely consistent. There's an argument to be made that Facebook/Twitter/YouTube should be treated as public utilities, because they are such integral parts of modern life, but I would really need to think a lot more about that to come to any sort of conclusion either way.

Alex Jones is nuts (or pretends to be for views, whatever), but let's assume this happened to someone who isn't a dickhead - I dunno, a hypothetical figurehead who'd amassed a huge following bringing attention to the problems caused by fracking or something gets deleted from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the same day. If that was to happen would it change anyone's way of thinking?
Click to expand...

Did this hypothetical guy break the ToS though?

One could argue others have and therefore should be banned, but if it happened to someone who hadn't then that would be interesting.
 
soap said:
@afrocentricity @Halftrack @Fridge chutney

I'm not really asking if you think Alex Jones should have been banned or not, it's totally understandable if you think so. I'm asking if you think these huge social media giants should just be allowed to ban whoever they want, given that they're private entities?
Click to expand...
As long as they have valid reason, and are not breaking any laws in doing so, yes.
 
soap said:
@afrocentricity @Halftrack @Fridge chutney

I'm not really asking if you think Alex Jones should have been banned or not, it's totally understandable if you think so. I'm asking if you think these huge social media giants should just be allowed to ban whoever they want, given that they're private entities?
Click to expand...

As long as they are private companies and have terms of service then they can get rid of anyone they want.
 
soap said:
@afrocentricity @Halftrack @Fridge chutney

I'm not really asking if you think Alex Jones should have been banned or not, it's totally understandable if you think so. I'm asking if you think these huge social media giants should just be allowed to ban whoever they want, given that they're private entities?
Click to expand...
As much as I detest him, if they started banning people like Ben Shapiro then I would be concerned. They don't really ban whoever they want. Alex Jones is a particular case and we can't treat this like it isn't a very specific decision (rather than the throttling of right wing media and views, which I think is where you're going with your argument and which it most certainly isn't)

Would or should they give a platform to Nazis or the KKK? No. Some groups do not deserve to have a platform and I'm fine with that.
 
I'm not here to defend Shaprio. He's a pointless fecktard whose views I do not relate to.

But the tweets you referenced just prove he's a prat, and seemingly lacking in the intelligence he's so lauded for. Do you think they are bannable offences?
 
Eboue said:
it would be good as hell if ben shapiro got band
Click to expand...

Jack knowns the right are buttering his bread thick. The odds of their poster boys getting banned is subzero.
 
Fridge chutney said:
I'm not here to defend Shaprio. He's a pointless fecktard whose views I do not relate to.

But the tweets you referenced just prove he's a prat, and seemingly lacking in the intelligence he's so lauded for. Do you think they are bannable offences?
Click to expand...

i think being ben shapiro is a bannable offense
 
Redlambs said:
Did this hypothetical guy break the ToS though?

One could argue others have and therefore should be banned, but if it happened to someone who hadn't then that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Two points here. A) it would be extremely easy for Google/Facebook to interpret pretty much anything even remotely controversial as being a violation of ToS if they so chose and b) even if hypothetical guy was to be so careful as to make this impossible, what's to stop them simply changing their ToS, being a private entity and all?
 
soap said:
Two points here. A) it would be extremely easy for Google/Facebook to interpret pretty much anything even remotely controversial as being a violation of ToS if they so chose and b) even if hypothetical guy was to be so careful as to make this impossible, what's to stop them simply changing their ToS, being a private entity and all?
Click to expand...
What's to stop them using effects on the videos to make everybody look like Kim and Kanye? But seriously, do you have examples of YouTube doing anything remotely like what you posit?
 
soap said:
Two points here. A) it would be extremely easy for Google/Facebook to interpret pretty much anything even remotely controversial as being a violation of ToS if they so chose and b) even if hypothetical guy was to be so careful as to make this impossible, what's to stop them simply changing their ToS, being a private entity and all?
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of this actually happening though?

I mean I get what your point is, but this moron is at an extreme end. If someone with more moderate views gets banned just for having a different opinion, then that's something we can talk about being a slippery slope. But with the case in hand, it's really hard to suggest this one individual doesn't deserve it.

Although I will say if he was banned from all in the same day, then that's a little odd. It's obviously then coordinated, though I still don't have an ounce of sympathy for him.
 
@afrocentricity @Redlambs
Nah there are no examples, Alex Jones is the first person this has happened to as far as I know. But the fact that they COULD do this to anyone means I'm not sure it's right they have that power, which is why I am reluctant to see it being as clear cut as "they're a private company so there's no problem here".

From what I can tell most you think this is highly unlikely to happen to anyone who isn't calling the parents of dead children "crisis actors". I don't think it's that unlikely.

In the hypothetical I used of an anti-fracking activist, what's to stop pressure being put on these companies to make them go away? "Oh, there was some violence at an anti-fracking rally? Clearly this person is inciting violence, which breaks our ToS, bye bye". What would anyone actually be able to do about that given they're private companies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.