^Bahahaha, really you find it troubling? I don't.

When those Evangelical bakeries decide to not make a wedding cake for a gay couple, why do conservatives run to cry out freedom? That he or she should be able to make whatever decision they want with their business? When the shoe is on the other foot, conservatives want to cry censorship, and that a company should not be allowed to discriminate?

You can't have both sides. Alex Jones has called Sandy Hook a false flag, which has literally put families of the victims in actual danger from death threats from his psychotic minions.

Google, Facebook, etc have decided they do not want to associate with such a person, as legally they could be held liable for hosting videos in which in incites violence and hate speech.

How is that any different from the baker who doesn't want to make gay cakes?

Where was the big outcry when fox news stopped Airing a Trump Impeachment Ad.


Fox News Pulls Tom Steyer's Trump Impeachment Ad | Fortune

The hypocrisy on the right is hilarious.

I'm still failing to see how Alex Jones being banned for ToS violations is any different than anyone else that has ever been banned from anything online. Including all the idiots that have been banned from RS over the years.

It sounds like a lot of people want it to be impossible to ban anyone from anything on the internet, which would turn the internet into unusable garbage. Do you really think it would be a good idea to be unable to remove spammers, scammers, harassers, doxxers, posters of illegal content, viruses, etc? It would kill off anything that isn't 18+, since they wouldn't be able to remove anyone from things like Club Penguin.

that was a ruling based on religious rights. had nothing to do with allowing a business to discriminate simply because it's private.
it was also determined that the state court was biased against his religious right.

i don't really care that he got banned. aside from the entertainment he provided. but then you'd have to ask why antifa still has channels and sites up.
their are many many others who violate the terms. that's where the problem comes in. if they're targeting specifically conservative sites, it's discrimination.

fox news is a publisher. not a platform

And they are both businesses who at the end of the day are about making money.

If you think they should not have banned Alex you should also believe they should not have banned isis.

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time understanding that this is not a free speech issue. It's hilarious watching people twist themselves into a knot trying to defend Alex. I don't like Alex I just watch his videos for the lols but I think its wrong for him to be banned.

Welfare you bring up antifa but what if Sundar Pichai is a fan of them?

I ain't white but as I've said before, I think the whole thing, especially social justice system has gone too far or more precisely, the point that needs to be addressed is lost when people are so focused on superficial things.

Using social slurs, such as the N-word, chinks, Japs... etc is like swearing. They aren't appropriate, period. However, putting too much attention on how to stop people saying that is like you want people to stop saying fuck, shit or whatever please you. I have friends of colors and we are totally fine calling each other using racial slurs because we know there's no mal-intention. Just like we'd add some fucks and shits in our sentences.

The main point lies with social stereotyping or profiling of whatever group of ethnicity. Are Black people thought to have more chance of breaking the law? Whites can't jump? (athletic inferiority vs. black) or Asian are better at math? and the list goes on...

These are things that we need to address. Racism/sexism or any other form of discrimination will not go away just because we stopped using certain words. If that's the case, we should try to get rid of all foul languages altogether and we'd make the world a better place. That's horseshit... :fuckthatshit:

What if he were a fan of ISIS?

And that's his choice but I am sure the shareholders and people who put ads on youtube would not be happy. You think any company wants ads running on alex jones channel?

I know you think your an expert on the 2nd amendment but I think you should start studying the 1st amendment.

yup exactly.

self described anti fascist MILITANT group lol.

Most people don't seem to know anything about the 1st amendment in the US aside from it having something to do with free speech.

It only applies to congress making a law, that's it. Not to private companies in the wording or upholding of their ToS. I've been facepalming every time I see someone claiming this has anything to do with his rights and it's starting to give me a headache.

welfare you keep bringing up ANTIFA. Can you show me a large ANTIFA channel on youtube that should be banned?

Again, i never said this was an infringement of the first amendment.
The only thing i said even remotely close to that was that conservatives were more likely to hold free speech to a higher regard.
That is, allowing a platform to discuss ideas. Wasn't talking about the constitutional term.

So this is a matter of the number of subscribers then, yes?
More so than the content and whether it violates the terms?

LOL conservatives hold free speech to a higher regard. Who where the ones burning books and the ones protesting NWA.

Looks like hannity wants rap music banned.


and Christians ban Harry Potter.

Mass..school bans Harry Potter books - The Boston Globe

How fucked up is amarica. UPS delivers a package to the wrong house. Guy is to afraid to deliver the package to his neighbor because he is black and his white neighbors may think he is a criminal and shoot him.

https://www.indy100.com/article/ups-...carter-8489541

Thoughts on Robert Spenser, who runs jihadiwatch.org, having his Patreon account shut down, not for violating the ToS, but at the request of Mastercard? He seems to have some pretty nuanced, moderate views of Muslims and Islam, and really only takes issues with the extremists.

Tim Pool speculates that perhaps an Islamic country doesn't like Spener's opinions and told Mastercard to shut him down or risk all operations in that country. Faced with losing a lot of money, the easy choice was to squash one man's ability to conduct business and get his message out.

With the world moving towards e-commerce (we currently have a thread about businesses no longer accepting cash), large multinational corporations will wield even more power, to shut down and silence individuals and make it impossible for them to put food on the table let alone get their message out. They would be all too happy to see these people forced to give up their work and accept 9-5 jobs - less time and energy to get out those opinions. But don't rock the boat too much on your free time or they will go to your wage-slave employer and tell him to get rid of you or risk losing Mastercard's business. It's their company, they can do what they want.

Funny you bring this up, esp in this thread, because this is *EXACTLY* how the Trump-led US and China does its business.

You guys are right, the social media giants, Google in particular, should be able to remove content that they disagree with. However, I wish they had the wisdom not to.

A few thoughts:

1. The reason they did this is probably because there are mid term elections coming up and the Democrats can't afford to bomb as hard as they did during the presidential one

2. They are legitimizing Alex Jones - his followers already think that mainstream media is colluding to show a world view that fits their rhetoric. This just adds more fuel to the fire

3. If they're going to ban Alex Jones, then are they going to ban all content they disagree with or just conservative viewpoints? This is a slippery slope.

4. Google isn't required to have the same principles that the government has so yes they could revoke access to whoever they choose. However, doing this shows that they're not interested in a marketplace of ideas. In other words free speech is not an important value for them. Also, when they were in their infancy they recieved 100s of millions of tax payer dollars from the government without which they would not be so successful. It's hillarious that they used to say "don't be evil" because they're a bunch of evil bastards.

If anyone's interested:
https://www.privacytools.io/

The same thing happened to Julian Assange. People then started to send him bitcoin.

The guy in the video wants more government regulation or nationalization. Liberals have been asking for more regulation of the financial system for years but Republicans have always been against that. You can't have it both ways.

This issue has caused the some on the right to become champions of free speech and increased government with some on the left being champions of captialism and corporate censorship. As I pointed out with my first comments on the issue, very interesting to see all this hypocracy.

Speculation seems to be the key. People have jumped to all kinds of crazy ideas as to why, odds are the public will never know for sure and the conspiracy theorist nutters will never believe it anyways. Either way he's free to use other companies/platforms so why the panic over the actions of one of them?

Bad day for Trump.

NEWS
Michael Cohen, Trump's Loyal Former Attorney, Pleads Guilty
Cohen said he worked “at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” implicating the president.
1 hour ago
Sara Boboltz, HuffPost US Associate Editor of Viral Content, The Huffington Post
Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer and personal fixer, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to illegally interfering in the 2016 election at the direction of the president.