Apple bans Infowars app from store: report

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I do not put him in with conventional conservative speakers we think of, Rush,  Mark Levin and so on.

I don't either.  Conservatives would be foolish to associate themselves with Jones. 
! No longer available

[Sanguine]

OK, dumb question - is Jones associated with Trump? 

[TomSea]

For balance, let's not forget, I will hear some pretty bad things on leftist radio, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller (her show is also on TV).  That is their right to free speech, as to whether they say things that are actually dangerous to anyone, I might have to give it some time and listen and I would not say automatically, no they don't.  Once in awhile, I will tune into some leftist radio. When Ed Schultz wasn't tearing people down and talking about "prairie populism" or whatever, it wasn't always that bad to just listen to.  Just when the talking head is making attacks on conservatives, will I turn it off.

[TomSea]

I don't either.  Conservatives would be foolish to associate themselves with Jones. 
! No longer available

Is one to object to politicians appearing on the today show? Does that associate them with liberals?

[skeeter]

But Jones isn't a Conservative.  He plays whatever side will butter his bread. During the Bush era, he was almost a Bernie level leftist on most issues.  (Maximum wage, banning companies from getting too big, GMI, nationalized healthcare, anti-military, pro net neutrality.)

Neither is Rosanne Barr. But it suits the MSM to portray them that way.

[jpsb]

But Jones isn't a Conservative.  He plays whatever side will butter his bread. During the Bush era, he was almost a Bernie level leftist on most issues.

Well he sure as heck is not a progressive Marxist liberal. He made be a nut job but politics leans heavily to the right. And he is not the only one being silenced by big social media. I already mentioned Candace Owens and then there is Jim Jordan and Mark Medeows being shadow banned
on Twitter.

[ABX]

OK, dumb question - is Jones associated with Trump?

Only in that they are big fans of each other, Trump appeared on his show many times, and even gave Infowars White House press credentials.

But not officially. ;)

[TomSea]

Rick Santorum on CNN, guilt by association.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/04/15/rick-santorum-slams-james-comey-book-sotu-sot.cnn

Associates with fake news and liberals (sarcasm off).

[ABX]

Well he sure as heck is not a progressive Marxist liberal. He made be a nut job but politics leans heavily to the right. And he is not the only one being silenced by big social media. I already mentioned Candace Owens and then there is Jim Jordan and Mark Medeows being shadow banned
on Twitter.

I was editing that comment when you were probably writing this with many examples of where he very well is a Marxist styled progressive (closer to a Troskyite).

[jpsb]

OK, dumb question - is Jones associated with Trump?

No, but I think Jones is a big supporter of Trump.

[TomSea]

Jones is associated with, I believe the Ron Paul types, maybe even Rand Paul. I'm not going to think of Senator Rand Paul any less because of that. Roger Stone appears on Jones, that's not a blackmark automatically to me, Stone being a big Trump associate.

Oh dear:

! No longer available

Now, per some people's logic, Senator Rand Paul is not a conservative. See, this now, becomes a pc witchhunt when people say things like this.

That's getting to be a bit totalitarian, when one has to slight every guest that has been on the Alex Jones show in this fashion, tarring and feathering.  Downright Orwellian.

I don't either.  Conservatives would be foolish to associate themselves with Jones. 
! No longer available

[jpsb]

I was editing that comment when you were probably writing this with many examples of where he very well is a Marxist styled progressive (closer to a Troskyite).

I don't know much about Jones but I do not like to see anyone's voice silenced by big media or big
gov. Unless they are inciting violence. Big social media better be careful, they are inviting gov to
regulate them for violating Jones right to free speech. Google, Apple and twitter are publicly owned
corporations they should not be allowed take away Jones voice. They should also make clear what
their terns and conditions are prior to banning people.

[kevindavis007]

I don't know much about Jones but I do not like to see anyone's voice silenced by big media or big
gov. Unless they are inciting violence. Big social media better be careful, they are inviting gov to
regulate them for violating Jones right to free speech. Google, Apple and twitter are publicly owned
corporations they should not be allowed take away Jones voice. They should also make clear what
their terns and conditions are prior to banning people.

For the last time, social media sites has the right to ban or not ban what is ON THEIR SITE!!!!  It is not a public utility!!!!

[jpsb]

For the last time, social media sites has the right to ban or not ban what is ON THEIR SITE!!!!  It is not a public utility!!!!

Not at the moment, but if they continue to ban conservative voices that might change.

[jpsb]

What do you think of this? Just the first few minutes not the entire rant.

! No longer available

[skeeter]

For the last time, social media sites has the right to ban or not ban what is ON THEIR SITE!!!!  It is not a public utility!!!!

@kevindavis

Google owns Youtube.

Who hosts Google?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@kevindavis

Google owns Youtube.

Who hosts Google?

What do you mean who hosts Google? Who hosts their servers? They are hosted on datacenters around the country and world.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Is one to object to politicians appearing on the today show? Does that associate them with liberals?

I don't think so @TomSea , but it would depend on the subject matter being discussed.  If a conservative appeared on the show to present a conservative view point then definitely no.  I also don't think comparing infowars and today is a particularly useful consideration, but I do think if a person goes on a show, agrees with the hosts views, praises the host, and receives praise from the host, one could logically associate the two.

[skeeter]

What do you mean who hosts Google? Who hosts their servers? They are hosted on datacenters around the country and world.

Does Google not own their own storage facilities? If so I would think they come pretty close to constituting a natural monopoly subject to the Ma Bell treatment. At least they should be subject to anti trust laws when it comes to their censoring political speech.

[ABX]

Google, Apple and twitter are publicly owned
corporations they should not be allowed take away Jones voice. They should also make clear what
their terns and conditions are prior to banning people.

You do understand the difference in public sector and private sector, right?

Also, all those sites have clear and easily accessed terms and conditions. Ironically, Infowars has almost identical terms on his site that got him banned from YouTube and Twitter.

Example (note section 7b)

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms?chromeless=1

Agreeing to terms of service when you sign up is a contract, and violating the conditions of the contract can result in banning. Jones agreed to this when he signed up and willingly violated that contract.

[ABX]

Does Google not own their own storage facilities? If so I would think they come pretty close to constituting a natural monopoly subject to the Ma Bell treatment. At least they should be subject to anti trust laws when it comes to their censoring political speech.

Not at all. Every single service Google provides is also provided by countless competitors and they do not create a barrier to the market. MaBell on the other hand, at the time of regulation, had no competition and we're a barrier to competition.

Interestingly enough, as competition arose, such as from Cellular providers, most of their regulations were lifted (Telecom act of 1996).

And yet, Google has far more competition and offer less barriers than there were when the Telecom restrictions were lifted in 96. So the comparison to MaBell is almost backwards. 

[skeeter]

Not at all. Every single service Google provides is also provided by countless competitors and they do not create a barrier to the market. MaBell on the other hand, at the time of regulation, had no competition and we're a barrier to competition.

Interestingly enough, as competition arose, such as from Cellular providers, most of their regulations were lifted (Telecom act of 1996).

And yet, Google has far more competition and offer less barriers than there were when the Telecom restrictions were lifted in 96. So the comparison to MaBell is almost backwards.

Who owns Googles hosting facilities? How much does an exabyte of storage capacity cost?

I looked up other host providers. They were TINY by comparison and half of those I located were already belly up.

[ABX]

Who owns Googles hosting facilities?

Around the world around 20 different companies provide data center services to them,. Most of their data is hosted in their own data centers. But that isn't a barrier to competition because there are literally tens of thousands of alternative hosting facilities  for anyone entering the market to choose from. Going back to the MaBell comparison, they owned all the lines and all the switches. When regulation was lifted because competition came into the market, there were under a dozen options. Google now has thousands of competitors and doesn't have any market barrier monopoly.

https://www.google.com/about/datacenters

[ABX]

Oh, and Exabyte storage, that's mostly Oracle, not Google.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/worlds-1st-exabyte-storage-system/

[skeeter]

Oh, and Exabyte storage, that's mostly Oracle, not Google.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/worlds-1st-exabyte-storage-system/

Lower case e exabyte.

Suffice it to say just by virtue of their mammoth size, boundless resources and pverall domination of the market a good case could be made that Google is violating the spirit of our anti trust laws as they've choosen to start censoring political speech.