Why intentionally downplay the magnitude of these massive global companies? Why can you find objectively worse content on all of these sites? Who is being silenced, by whom and the timing are all serious questions to be asked. You don't like Alex Jones, so you don't bother asking these questions. I don't like Alex Jones either but I also don't like these companies pretending to be neutral players in the political landscape. We know that isn't true. And I say that knowing full well that Alex does more harm to Conservatives/Republicans publicly than good.
The level of scrutiny is directly proportional to the level of notoriety. These are money making enterprises who are adverse to notoriety. They aren't doing this as some sort of public service
It is perfectly within the rights of a private company to limit, edit or outright ban anything that they want from those areas they own or can control. Facebook shouldn't have to allow Diamond and Silk if they don't want to. Twitter should be able to ban Trump, if they wish. Google can ban Alex Jones across all platforms, for any reason, or no reason at all. If someone doesn't like it, make an alternative to Facebook / Twitter / Google. The Market will pick the winners and losers. Now, later, if Facebook, Twitter or Google attempt to say that they support "all views" or "diversity", that they don't pick who they like / squelch that which they don't, well, they're just liars. Which is also fine. And those who support their doing this, but who will later claim that any sort of objectivity remains amongst these groups, or who will [itch bay] about Fox News doing the same in excluding others / their views, but only when it's someone you like / think deserves equal time, then you're a hypocrite. Again, also fine. And, since we can all agree on the new "private businesses can do whatever they want and the market is singularly best to figure out who is right / wrong" - then let's all and similarly agree to leave homophobic bakers alone, Augusta National, the Oscars when they don't nominate a black artist, Chik Fil A who won't give a franchise to The Gays, etc. And, I'd be remiss if I didn't respectfully remind everyone of this: Why it is always liberals who are the quickest to claim the mantle of Champions of Liberty when it comes to the biological male who demands that everyone suspend their understanding of biological science so as to join them in pretending that they have either the right or ability to simply identify as a bottle of aspirin.....but then want to shut everyone up who says shit that they don't like, often claiming that it's too "outlandish" or "inciting hate / violence", etc.?
Well, If Brian Stetler and David Frum can float conspiracy theories that Melania has "disappeared" or possibly been assaulted by Trump, and then Trump used secret service to cover it up, then Alex Jones can say that Hilary is a bloodsucking zombie vampire. They are both [uck fay]ing ridiculous. Nobody hurried to remove the CNN host or the writer from The Atlantic however. What happened to Candace Owens recently on Twitter is proof that they aren't looking to silence hate speech, just hate speech from certain people. Same thing they did to Alex.
Visit exit 4 on I-81 any Saturday. Go to stall #3, knock and ask for the Trucker's Delight. All will be revealed.
He was able to say it. He's now facing the reprecussions. Being able to say whatever doesn't equate to freedom from the consequences of what is said.
Yup. What they choose silence and what they continue to allow is telling. I guess they consider him a threat.
He's such a poor poor victim. For the group that called everyone a snowflake, the alt-right sure does piss and moan a mean victim mentality.
Nah, he will be fine. This is less about Jones and more about the companies colluding to silence him. Who is alt-right? What is alt-right?
Just to be open here, so nobody misconstrues my position, I don't want to be defending Alex Jones. I'm not a fan, I don't visit his sites or take him seriously. I do watch some of his live stream on Twitter, they are good for a laugh but I am far from a supporter.
If this is the case, and it's the liberals who are so bad, why are there ideas one could express here and get censored, banned, etc.? I mean, if the advocacy on this site is of some sort of notion of completely free speech, then I'm not sure why the limitations would exist here. Besides, are we really reflecting upon something political here, anyway, with Jones? No one is asking for Diamond and Silk to be removed, nor any other nominally conservative channel, page, etc. and Jones wasn't being pushed away until he became a danger to people with his show. Pushing gay frogs is silly. Publishing addresses of Sandy Hook parents is dangerous. I see no reason to allow the latter in the interest of fidelity to free speech or not wanting to be hypocritical.
