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

That's the nature of the beast, private companies get to set the terms. You can choose whether or not you want to use their premises, services, platform, etc... It is what it is. If or when your hypothetical happened, the public DO have the power to influence their decision because they need us more than we need them. We're talking about AJ tho... So it's only a small portion of the public that even give a feck.
 
Last edited:
@soap it could theoretically happen, but I'd treat it as a "let's cross that bridge if we come to it" situation because there's no evidence that Alex Jones wasn't a very particular and unique case.
 
@afrocentricity

Alex Jones has a massive following and deleting his accounts will barely even put the slightest dent in their revenues. The bulk of YouTube's income is from gaming/makeup/cat videos and such, people are not going to boycott them en masse if they deplatform a political figure of any nature, I just don't see it.
 
@afrocentricity

Alex Jones has a massive following and deleting his accounts will barely even put the slightest dent in their revenues. The bulk of YouTube's income is from gaming/makeup/cat videos and such, people are not going to boycott them en masse if they deplatform a political figure of any nature, I just don't see it.
I do. Also the negative publicity will be merciless. AJ doesn't warrant much negative publicity let's be honest. Probably loads celebrating....
 
Losing Jones won't mean anything to YouTube as he is probably something like 0.00000001 % of their traffic,
 
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".
To be fair to YouTube, they've shown leniency towards Alex Jones and InfoWars before. Last year, they started doing a crackdown on channels promoting conspiracy theories, and many got deleted. InfoWars did not get deleted. Not even their videos where Sandy Hook got called a hoax were deleted, and these are videos that caused harassment campaigns against bereaved families.

It's one thing if InfoWars and Alex Jones were just a conservative voice, but they weren't. They had broken the rules repeatedly, and the worst they'd gotten previously was a slap on the wrist. This deletion was long overdue.
 
Losing Jones won't mean anything to YouTube as he is probably something like 0.00000001 % of their traffic,

Exactly, and InfoWars was one of, if not the biggest "news" channel on the site. He got an absolute feckload of views. If kicking him off won't hurt them at all then neither will doing the same to anyone else putting out political content. If for some reason they wanted The Young Turks gone then they could do so, and that would be that.

I do. Also the negative publicity will be merciless. AJ doesn't warrant much negative publicity let's be honest. Probably loads celebrating....

There would be loads of celebrating and use of the "they're private companies" argument if Momentum were kicked off social media. Daily Mail, The Sun et. al would absolutely love it, and only a very small number of people would actually stop watching football compilations, GoT reactions and All Time Top 10s on YouTube if it happened.
 
There would be loads of celebrating and use of the "they're private companies" argument if Momentum were kicked off social media. Daily Mail, The Sun et. al would absolutely love it, and only a very small number of people would actually stop watching football compilations, GoT reactions and All Time Top 10s on YouTube if it happened.
...and they'd be right if Momentum broke their terms.

If as you mentioned earlier it was some arbitrary action dish trains then I'd have an issue with it and I wouldn't use their service. That's all I could right? Private company and all that....
 
...and they'd be right if Momentum broke their terms.

If as you mentioned earlier it was some arbitrary action dish trains then I'd have an issue with it and I wouldn't use their service. That's all I could right? Private company and all that....

Absolutely that's all you/I/we could do, and I find that kind of worrying.
 
He's an act. A scam artist. Notice on this obnoxious BBC interview that he keeps saying "INFOWARS.COM"... he's antagonistic and everything he does is to enrich himself. And he does so immorally. Great decision by YouTube et al.

 
@soap you could try and start an anti-trust lawsuit if it's YouTube that is blocking you since I don't see a whole lot of competition in their field (online video sharing) so that it's not far-fetched to conclude that they are in a market-dominant position. Going from there you would claim that in absence of competition forces they would have to offer a fair ToS etc. etc. with the eventual target of getting a judge to grant an obligation to contract between YouTube and you so that you could re-upload again.
 
@soap you could try and start an anti-trust lawsuit if it's YouTube that is blocking you since I don't see a whole lot of competition in their field (online video sharing) so that it's not far-fetched to conclude that they are in a market-dominant position. Going from there you would claim that in absence of competition forces they would have to offer a fair ToS etc. etc. with the eventual target of getting a judge to grant an obligation to contract between YouTube and you so that you could re-upload again.
It looks like you have not heard about Twitch. YouTube does not have monopoly.
 
@soap you could try and start an anti-trust lawsuit if it's YouTube that is blocking you since I don't see a whole lot of competition in their field (online video sharing) so that it's not far-fetched to conclude that they are in a market-dominant position. Going from there you would claim that in absence of competition forces they would have to offer a fair ToS etc. etc. with the eventual target of getting a judge to grant an obligation to contract between YouTube and you so that you could re-upload again.
:confused:

There's loads. Always has been....

Edit: My first hit on Google.
 
It looks like you have not heard about Twitch. YouTube does not have monopoly.
There's loads. Always has been....

Market share seems to paint a picture where YouTube is pretty much alone in terms of dominance. Competition doesn't mean that there are no other actors in the market, but that these actors actually compete.

Leading multimedia websites in the United States in November 2016, based on market share of visits


Unbenannt.png
 
Market share seems to paint a picture where YouTube is pretty much alone in terms of dominance. Competition doesn't mean that there are no other actors in the market, but that these actors actually compete.

Leading multimedia websites in the United States in November 2016, based on market share of visits


Unbenannt.png
What is this statistic ? Why is Netflix there , when they don't provide user upload of original content?
 
What is this statistic ? Why is Netflix there , when they don't provide user upload of original content?

As the title says it's multimedia websites so I agree it's not perfect and Netflix shouldn't be on there. But then again I couldn't find a better stat in the little time I had. It does have some of the pages that @afrocentricity suggested are competitors to Youtube so imo it serves to show that they aren't really competitors. Bummer that Twitch isn't on there.

Feel free to add other stats as I'm not firmly of the opinion that YouTube is alone or something. My feeling is that there aren't a lot of competitors out there.
 
@Javi

I don't know the details but I believe anything trust laws were weakened (at least in interpretation) starting in the 70s. I believe Robert bork was involved in this.
 
Market share seems to paint a picture where YouTube is pretty much alone in terms of dominance. Competition doesn't mean that there are no other actors in the market, but that these actors actually compete.

Leading multimedia websites in the United States in November 2016, based on market share of visits


Unbenannt.png
Telling that the only two other outlets who have more than a 1% market share aren't even video sharing sites! Surprised LiveLeak isn't on there, that used to be the place to watch stuff that was banned on YouTube
 
Telling that the only two other outlets who have more than a 1% market share aren't even video sharing sites! Surprised LiveLeak isn't on there, that used to be the place to watch stuff that was banned on YouTube
Not really, YouTube works, it's plugged into Google and your phone, and it's convenient. There's nothing stopping people from moving to any of the other services (dailymotion for example), maybe people will at some point.

There was a time that nobody could see past MySpace... Then we got Facebook and SoundCloud.
 
No. Here's the thing. People can say he's a nut and deserves to be censored but prove to anyone he's not playing a role for the sole purpose of introducing censorship and you can't and therefore it's a dangerous route to go down JUST because you believe he's this or that (it means you take things at face value). Because then you are being herded like sheep down a certain interlectual path that don't HAVE to be true.... If you follow politics or know much the CIA coined the term conspiracy theorist. By definition in 2018, if you ask a question that is not supported by the mainstream, that is what you are. It's dangerous to be put under an umbrella because it allows for generalization. YouTube and the like talk about 'hate speech', but this is all politically motivated. People don't get that when you have big corporations financing people trying to get into government, then THAT by it's nature IS a conspiracy. And likewise if a government was in control how can it ever be in debt and what is the purpose of any government to be in debt? It can only ever be to influence policy. Especially when you had a time whereby governments could create money interest free. It seems almost stupid to put debt on yourself unless there is a reason people are not told. But Corporations don't pay big money, for zero influence. It's bad business. So I think you can look at this from multiple perspectives rather then one. The foundation for me is the credibility of the man. Is he legitimate OR was his purpose to be seen as crazy as to create this snowball effect? When you legitimize something then you accept the notion of censorship PERIOD but isn't it funny? You have the dark web...where people can hire someone to commit murder say...or to buy drugs and that's not censored and that don't cause outrage...and yet you get the media thinking Alex Jones is the biggest threat? :) ( I wonder if it's to influence people who are not clued in or tech savvy and perhaps who are much more likely to vote) This is all politics and from my POV, he must return to youtube and if you don't want to watch him? Don't. But some people choose to be offended for a whole host of reasons. Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good
 
Last edited:
He's an act. A scam artist. Notice on this obnoxious BBC interview that he keeps saying "INFOWARS.COM"... he's antagonistic and everything he does is to enrich himself. And he does so immorally. Great decision by YouTube et al.



He's not completely an actor. Watch this doc from the early 2000s when he was little known.



He might be amping it up a bit but he genuinely believes a lot of this.
 
He's not completely an actor. Watch this doc from the early 2000s when he was little known.



He might be amping it up a bit but he genuinely believes a lot of this.

It's bit of both I imagine. I've seen maybe 5 (give or take) of his early documentaries and I won't lie, I found them interesting. Then I started to listen to his radio show and it only took a few listens for me to figure out he's closet bigoted so I bailed and that was that. He's seen dollar signs and gone down the rabbit hole. Half of the stuff he says now is when's driven and not stuff he really believes. Gotta keep his fanbase happy and that money rolling in.
 
It's bit of both I imagine. I've seen maybe 5 (give or take) of his early documentaries and I won't lie, I found them interesting. Then I started to listen to his radio show and it only took a few listens for me to figure out he's closet bigoted so I bailed and that was that. He's seen dollar signs and gone down the rabbit hole. Half of the stuff he says now is when's driven and not stuff he really believes. Gotta keep his fanbase happy and that money rolling in.

Bear in mind that Jon Ronson first met Alex Jones when he was helping David Koresh to build the Branch Dividian church in Waco!

Jones descends from the from a Welsh Texan lineage. It's where a lot of the anti-government paranoia comes from in America. They left what they saw the oppression of the British government back in the day and wanted to build a state free from that oppression. He's right on extreme side of that paranoia where many believe that they will have to take up arms against their own government before long.
 
No. Here's the thing. People can say he's a nut and deserves to be censored but prove to anyone he's not playing a role for the sole purpose of introducing censorship and you can't and therefore it's a dangerous route to go down JUST because you believe he's this or that (it means you take things at face value). Because then you are being herded like sheep down a certain interlectual path that don't HAVE to be true.... If you follow politics or know much the CIA coined the term conspiracy theorist. By definition in 2018, if you ask a question that is not supported by the mainstream, that is what you are. It's dangerous to be put under an umbrella because it allows for generalization. YouTube and the like talk about 'hate speech', but this is all politically motivated. People don't get that when you have big corporations financing people trying to get into government, then THAT by it's nature IS a conspiracy. And likewise if a government was in control how can it ever be in debt and what is the purpose of any government to be in debt? It can only ever be to influence policy. Especially when you had a time whereby governments could create money interest free. It seems almost stupid to put debt on yourself unless there is a reason people are not told. But Corporations don't pay big money, for zero influence. It's bad business. So I think you can look at this from multiple perspectives rather then one. The foundation for me is the credibility of the man. Is he legitimate OR was his purpose to be seen as crazy as to create this snowball effect? When you legitimize something then you accept the notion of censorship PERIOD but isn't it funny? You have the dark web...where people can hire someone to commit murder say...or to buy drugs and that's not censored and that don't cause outrage...and yet you get the media thinking Alex Jones is the biggest threat? :) ( I wonder if it's to influence people who are not clued in or tech savvy and perhaps who are much more likely to vote) This is all politics and from my POV, he must return to youtube and if you don't want to watch him? Don't. But some people choose to be offended for a whole host of reasons. Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good

A conspiracy theory in itself. The CIA used the term to disparage critics of the Warren report but it had been around since well before the 1960s with references going back to the American Historical Review in 1909 and debates in the Lancet and Journal of Medical Science on the treatment of UK psychiatric patients in 1870. I'm sure that long before that the term would have been recognisable in a great many of the classical conspiracies in 18th and 19th century Europe be it about freemasons, jews, royalty, satanists etc. Read Umberto Eco's The Prague Cemetery and you'll see the same conspiracy theories arising over and over from Augustin Barrouel's treatise against Napoleon's favouring of jews through Garibaldi's red shirts in Italy up to the rise of fascism.

Conspiracy theories by their very nature lack evidence and therefore rely on blind belief that there are unseen and possibly malevolent forces manipulating events. Sure, at times things that were conspiracy theories like MK Ultra will be revealed to have been genuine but evidence of one specific theory does not mean all the others must therefore be true, that the moon landings were faked, that aliens landed at Roswell or that planes are being used to dust us with mind control chemicals.

Alex Jones is a raving lunatic banging on about gay frogs, lizard overlords and impending armageddon. Does he believe it all, probably not, much of it is an act to bring in viewers and sell them snake oil and survivalist crap but from his interviews with Jon Ronson it's clear that (like David Icke) there is a very deep vein of paranoia and some quite disturbing beliefs that underly his public persona. It's about time he was taken off public channels like YouTube as hen clearly will not stop baiting the parents from Sandy Hook and with his calls to resist the Mueller enquiry and possible impeachment of Trump is in danger of inciting violence in the more unhinged corners of his audience. It's not a freedom of speech issue, when he crosses the line in terms of publishing the names and addresses of the parents of dead children or calling for physical action against the judiciary then it's criminal and he should probably be facing charges for what he has broadcast, not just skulking away after all the mainstream channels have shut down his access.
 
No. Here's the thing. People can say he's a nut and deserves to be censored but prove to anyone he's not playing a role for the sole purpose of introducing censorship and you can't and therefore it's a dangerous route to go down JUST because you believe he's this or that (it means you take things at face value). Because then you are being herded like sheep down a certain interlectual path that don't HAVE to be true.... If you follow politics or know much the CIA coined the term conspiracy theorist. By definition in 2018, if you ask a question that is not supported by the mainstream, that is what you are. It's dangerous to be put under an umbrella because it allows for generalization. YouTube and the like talk about 'hate speech', but this is all politically motivated. People don't get that when you have big corporations financing people trying to get into government, then THAT by it's nature IS a conspiracy. And likewise if a government was in control how can it ever be in debt and what is the purpose of any government to be in debt? It can only ever be to influence policy. Especially when you had a time whereby governments could create money interest free. It seems almost stupid to put debt on yourself unless there is a reason people are not told. But Corporations don't pay big money, for zero influence. It's bad business. So I think you can look at this from multiple perspectives rather then one. The foundation for me is the credibility of the man. Is he legitimate OR was his purpose to be seen as crazy as to create this snowball effect? When you legitimize something then you accept the notion of censorship PERIOD but isn't it funny? You have the dark web...where people can hire someone to commit murder say...or to buy drugs and that's not censored and that don't cause outrage...and yet you get the media thinking Alex Jones is the biggest threat? :) ( I wonder if it's to influence people who are not clued in or tech savvy and perhaps who are much more likely to vote) This is all politics and from my POV, he must return to youtube and if you don't want to watch him? Don't. But some people choose to be offended for a whole host of reasons. Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good
He wasn't censored by YouTube, his channel was deleted for repeatedly breaking the T&C they agreed to. YouTube's been incredibly lenient with him and InfoWars, and the deletion was long overdue.

He isn't just some political commentator, he's fecking dangerous. Him and InfoWars peddle in lies that puts other people in danger.

And goddamn, try hitting 'Enter' every once in a while.
 
I won't lie, seeing that wall of text put me of reading it. Do you have a TL/DR?

I am not fluid in conspiracy rambling, but here's my take.

  • Alex Jones might have played crazy on purpose to to get Youtube to introduce cencorship?
  • Sheeple??
  • YouTube is the government now???
  • You can hire assassins on the dark web and it's not censored so why is Alex Jones censored???? (???????!?!?!???)
  • People get offended over anything these days?????
  • Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good
 
'Wake up, sheeple'.
OIC
I am not fluid in conspiracy rambling, but here's my take.

  • Alex Jones might have played crazy on purpose to to get Youtube to introduce cencorship?
  • Sheeple??
  • YouTube is the government now???
  • You can hire assassins on the dark web and it's not censored so why is Alex Jones censored???? (???????!?!?!???)
  • People get offended over anything these days?????
  • Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good
Feck me I like this summary, almost convinced me to go back and read it, almost. The question marks were a master stroke. :cool:
 
Jones is claiming he has Chomsky's support on this:

 
Jones is claiming he has Chomsky's support on this:



FFS, I'm at 14 minutes now and he's going on about Stanley Kubrick being killed for uncovering some Dracula-inspired pedophile ring, or something.
 
No. Here's the thing. People can say he's a nut and deserves to be censored but prove to anyone he's not playing a role for the sole purpose of introducing censorship and you can't and therefore it's a dangerous route to go down JUST because you believe he's this or that (it means you take things at face value). Because then you are being herded like sheep down a certain interlectual path that don't HAVE to be true.... If you follow politics or know much the CIA coined the term conspiracy theorist. By definition in 2018, if you ask a question that is not supported by the mainstream, that is what you are. It's dangerous to be put under an umbrella because it allows for generalization. YouTube and the like talk about 'hate speech', but this is all politically motivated. People don't get that when you have big corporations financing people trying to get into government, then THAT by it's nature IS a conspiracy. And likewise if a government was in control how can it ever be in debt and what is the purpose of any government to be in debt? It can only ever be to influence policy. Especially when you had a time whereby governments could create money interest free. It seems almost stupid to put debt on yourself unless there is a reason people are not told. But Corporations don't pay big money, for zero influence. It's bad business. So I think you can look at this from multiple perspectives rather then one. The foundation for me is the credibility of the man. Is he legitimate OR was his purpose to be seen as crazy as to create this snowball effect? When you legitimize something then you accept the notion of censorship PERIOD but isn't it funny? You have the dark web...where people can hire someone to commit murder say...or to buy drugs and that's not censored and that don't cause outrage...and yet you get the media thinking Alex Jones is the biggest threat? :) ( I wonder if it's to influence people who are not clued in or tech savvy and perhaps who are much more likely to vote) This is all politics and from my POV, he must return to youtube and if you don't want to watch him? Don't. But some people choose to be offended for a whole host of reasons. Oh and check out the alex jones indie song which is really good
The feck is this shit?
 
I won't lie, seeing that wall of text put me of reading it. Do you have a TL/DR?
You know that one 'friend' who's smoked too much weed and thinks he has seen through the lies of the elite and now knows all the truths? Just imagine him rambling, and you've got it
 
You know that one 'friend' who's smoked too much weed and thinks he has seen through the lies of the elite and now knows all the truths? Just imagine him rambling, and you've got it
Ok I'm sold, gonna read it when I've had a puff. I like those guys :D