Apple bans Infowars app from store: report

[Formerly Once-Ler]

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:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFoGvfWtqq4#

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.

Take a breath @TomSea

You started out saying : I do not put him in with conventional conservative speakers we think of, Rush,  Mark Levin and so on.
I agreed : I don't either.  Conservatives would be foolish to associate themselves with Jones. 

This is now morphed into Rand Paul is not a conservative and everyone appearing on infowars should be tarred and feathered. Take a xanex and get back to me.

When you calm down consider this.  It used to be that the market self regulated so when a personality got too wacky he would be met with boycotts and loss of sponsors.  Today the need for instant content can make it profitable for being wrong as long as you get enough clicks...being outrageous is the new winning strategy that Trump tapped into, and reality and truth are what you feed your consumers. 

I don't believe grabbing your pitchfork and marching against gay frogs is your thing.  Don't be that guy just because I agreed with you.  It's not rational.

[ABX]

Lower case e exabyte.

So no comeback other than nitpicking my phone's autocorrect?

[kevindavis007]

@kevindavis

Google owns Youtube.

Who hosts Google?

Some private data center host Google and their servers..

[skeeter]

So no comeback other than nitpicking my phone's autocorrect?

Goog grief. Not exabyte the company. Exabyte the unit of electronic data. A million terabytes.

[jpsb]

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.

 

[ABX]

Making judgments based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of th law is textbook liberalism and is one of the foundations of social justice activism. The 'spirit' of something is subject to personal whims and manipulated belief and can change with the tides of pop culture and daily outrage. The letter of the law is blind to whims and is clear and measurable.

Obama used the 'spirit' of the law when using the IRS to censor political thought or forcing banks to stop sending to gun makers. In every case, he and other liberals could cite laws that they could twist the 'spirit' of to fit their whims, even if it was contrary to the letter of the law.

Take out the word Conservative from your argument and see if it holds up. Does any private social media or other website have the right to censor any thought from it's platform? Does a Christian website have the right to censor a Satanist from posting? Does a pro-gun forum have the right to censor anti-gun rhetoric? Does Free Republic or this site have the right to ban liberals? Does the ADL site have the right to ban Stormfront? Saying yes to any of those but no to another, because you like the other, isn't right in the eyes of the law, it is selective application of the law based on your own political bias. (Aka, textbook liberalism)

[Applewood]

Why am I not surprised that you have no problem with censuring free speech?

I notice you didn't quote my whole post.  Did you read the part where I said feee speech is not free if it causes real harm to others? 

I'm not talking about being annoying or offensive.  I'm talking about inciting some whack job to, say, shoot a Sandy Hook parent.  Do you think in that situation Jones should get off scot-free because you think his speech should be protected?

[skeeter]

Making judgments based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of th law is textbook liberalism and is one of the foundations of social justice activism. The 'spirit' of something is subject to personal whims and manipulated belief and can change with the tides of pop culture and daily outrage. The letter of the law is blind to whims and is clear and measurable.

Obama used the 'spirit' of the law when using the IRS to censor political thought or forcing banks to stop sending to gun makers. In every case, he and other liberals could cite laws that they could twist the 'spirit' of to fit their whims, even if it was contrary to the letter of the law.

Take out the word Conservative from your argument and see if it holds up. Does any private social media or other website have the right to censor any thought from it's platform? Does a Christian website have the right to censor a Satanist from posting? Does a pro-gun forum have the right to censor anti-gun rhetoric? Does Free Republic or this site have the right to ban liberals? Does the ADL site have the right to ban Stormfront? Saying yes to any of those but no to another, because you like the other, isn't right in the eyes of the law, it is selective application of the law based on your own political bias. (Aka, textbook liberalism)

So I'm a liberal. Thats it.

[ABX]

So I'm a liberal. Thats it.

Calling for the government to interfere in the markets for political purposes is textbook liberalism. But it seems everything has been shifting radically left lately.

If ones completion of the sentence: "the government should ______", is anything other than something akin to "butt out", you may be a liberal. If you think the government's job is to force equality of outcome, you may be a liberal. If you think more regulation is the answer, you may be a liberal. If you think the government should rule versus represent, you may be a liberal. If you think that your rights extend to forcing another entity to provide you a service (such as hosting your speech), you may be a liberal. If you don't even consider the option of getting the government out of the way when you see a problem, you may be a liberal.

This has to be the most depressing Jeff Foxworthy parody ever.

[TomSea]

FDA enforces what some makers of drugs can and can not say. Free Speech really should not mean "Free Ride" though, if this was something up for a vote, I would vote for Jones' cause not him. He does say some silly things and I think he's taking his listeners for a ride.

[skeeter]

Calling for the government to interfere in the markets for political purposes is textbook liberalism. But it seems everything has been shifting radically left lately.

If ones completion of the sentence: "the government should ______", is anything other than something akin to "butt out", you may be a liberal. If you think the government's job is to force equality of outcome, you may be a liberal. If you think more regulation is the answer, you may be a liberal. If you think the government should rule versus represent, you may be a liberal. If you think that your rights extend to forcing another entity to provide you a service (such as hosting your speech), you may be a liberal. If you don't even consider the option of getting the government out of the way when you see a problem, you may be a liberal.

This has to be the most depressing Jeff Foxworthy parody ever.

If you attempt to win arguments by falsely imputing words and beliefs to others you may be a liberal.

What I do believe is corporations, like governments, can become so large and so dominant as to become tyrannical and if that can be proven it benefits the rest of us to break them up.

[kevindavis007]

If you attempt to win arguments by falsely imputing words and beliefs to others you may be a liberal.

But the fact is this: Social Media sites IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY!!!!

Believe it or not there are alternatives to Facebook: https://www.1and1.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/the-best-facebook-alternatives/

However, if you don't like those sites, find some developers, a big money backer, and start your own site.

[ABX]

If you attempt to win arguments by falsely imputing words and beliefs to others you may be a liberal.

What I do believe is corporations, like governments, can become so large and so dominant as to become tyrannical and if that can be proven it benefits the rest of us to break them up.

So you want the one entity that actually is a true monopoly and actually has become so big to become tyrannical, to be the arbitrator of who else is too big?

You have a choice not to use Google or Facebook. You don't have a choice but to live under the government, who has a monopoly on force.

[ABX]

But the fact is this: Social Media sites IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY!!!!

Believe it or not there are alternatives to Facebook: https://www.1and1.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/the-best-facebook-alternatives/

However, if you don't like those sites, find some developers, a big money backer, and start your own site.

I wonder if some realize that the people they will hand these keys over to is the Deep State they fear so much? Those are the bureaucrats and career government employees who would actually regulate these things going forward.

Once they have the keys, they control the door- not you.

[skeeter]

But the fact is this: Social Media sites IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY!!!!

Believe it or not there are alternatives to Facebook: https://www.1and1.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/the-best-facebook-alternatives/

However, if you don't like those sites, find some developers, a big money backer, and start your own site.

Just whip out my checkbook and buy a million terabyte of storage.

Look, I don't care how successful Google is. Good for them. But when they start using their position of extreme advantage as a chokepoint for information in an attempt to effect political outcomes it becomes a breach of public trust and thats everyone's business.

I'd feel the same way regardless of who's politics they were promoting.

[skeeter]

I wonder if some realize that the people they will hand these keys over to is the Deep State they fear so much? Those are the bureaucrats and career government employees who would actually regulate these things going forward.

Once they have the keys, they control the door- not you.

Who said anything about government regulating?

[ABX]

Who said anything about government regulating?

Breaking up a company, that you called for at least four times in this thread, is government regulation. It is government bureaucrats deciding how big something can get, how it can operate, and overseeing the breakup in a manner acceptable to the deep state bureaucrats who decided it was too big in the first place.

Plus, others on this very forum, have called for it to be regulated like a public utility. Even the President has tweeted a call for this.

All that does is hand the keys to the Deep State bureaucracy.

[Free Vulcan]

Why?

I've never seen what Alex Jones has ever done that is so hateful? The guy is a loon, sure. Why are they all going after this guy?

Pure partisanship. He supports Trump. The Left says and does far more incendiary things on social media, and rarely is anything done.

The inconsistency is glaring.

[skeeter]

Breaking up a company, that you called for at least four times in this thread, is government regulation. It is government bureaucrats deciding how big something can get, how it can operate, and overseeing the breakup in a manner acceptable to the deep state bureaucrats who decided it was too big in the first place.

Plus, others on this very forum, have called for it to be regulated like a public utility. Even the President has tweeted a call for this.

All that does is hand the keys to the Deep State bureaucracy.

Applying anti trust laws, which any reasonable person can agree is sometimes necessary, is a legal proceeding.

Personally, I think making it easier for private entities to compete in what is now Google's sandbox would be a really good thing all liberty minded people would approve of.

[kevindavis007]

Just whip out my checkbook and buy a million terabyte of storage.

Look, I don't care how successful Google is. Good for them. But when they start using their position of extreme advantage as a chokepoint for information in an attempt to effect political outcomes it becomes a breach of public trust and thats everyone's business.

I'd feel the same way regardless of who's politics they were promoting.

Well believe it or not there are alternatives.

[ABX]

Applying anti trust laws, which any reasonable person can agree is sometimes necessary, is a legal proceeding.

Personally, I think making it easier for private entities to compete in what is now Google's sandbox would be a really good thing all liberty minded people would approve of.

I'm sticking with the case that not only are they not a monopoly, they are in one of the most highly competitive markets in history (if not the most highly competitive market). The internet is also a market that has the least barriers to entry ever. You used the purchase of storage above, but the cost to purchase that is a fraction of what it takes to purchase physical property for a physical storefront.

Take this site, a small social media site. Myst probably initially started this for under a hundred dollars and maybe invests a couple thousand a year into it. Try starting any brick and mortar storefront for that.

You don't need exabytes of storage to start a search engine. You just need to know how to code it (and there are even free code APIs you can use).

You don't need millions of dollars to compete with CNN, NBC, ABC, & CBS. you can compete with them for the cost of a case of beer and a corner in your apartment- ask Matt Drudge about that.

The market is the opposite of a monopoly, it is the Wild West right now. It is still the 1849 gold boom where anyone with a pan and a good idea can be successful.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Making judgments based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of th law is textbook liberalism and is one of the foundations of social justice activism. The 'spirit' of something is subject to personal whims and manipulated belief and can change with the tides of pop culture and daily outrage. The letter of the law is blind to whims and is clear and measurable.

Obama used the 'spirit' of the law when using the IRS to censor political thought or forcing banks to stop sending to gun makers. In every case, he and other liberals could cite laws that they could twist the 'spirit' of to fit their whims, even if it was contrary to the letter of the law.

Take out the word Conservative from your argument and see if it holds up. Does any private social media or other website have the right to censor any thought from it's platform? Does a Christian website have the right to censor a Satanist from posting? Does a pro-gun forum have the right to censor anti-gun rhetoric? Does Free Republic or this site have the right to ban liberals? Does the ADL site have the right to ban Stormfront? Saying yes to any of those but no to another, because you like the other, isn't right in the eyes of the law, it is selective application of the law based on your own political bias. (Aka, textbook liberalism)

   so good it deserves another read.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I wonder if some realize that the people they will hand these keys over to is the Deep State they fear so much? Those are the bureaucrats and career government employees who would actually regulate these things going forward.

Once they have the keys, they control the door- not you.

  OMG I wish I wrote that.

[skeeter]

Appreciate the response. And even though you and I will have to agree to disagree here it’s clear you’ve picked up at least one enthusiastic fan.

[kevindavis007]

Oh by the way, does anyone remember MySpace?