YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban Infowars, Which Decries 'Mega Purge'

[kevindavis007]

Because he has every right to be heard, just like anybody.

So basically you want the Federal Government to tell Facebook (A private company), that they have to allow content from whack jobs like Alex Jones. Correct?

[kevindavis007]

@rumpfshaker

Replying to @TheBrownFolder @tedcruz
Jones has a free speech right to spout his nonsense conspiracy theories. And Facebook has the right to kick him off their platform if they wish. I have no problem with that.

[Restored]

Correct. it is censorship if the government is involved. Alex Jones does not have the right to hold FaceBook hostage. FB is the conduit and they are partly responsible for their content.

[roamer_1]

A right to have a place on a company website owned by others?  A right?

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. The question was 'Also, why in the hell are conservatives defending Alex Jones.'
The 'also' put it into a general context, removed from the first part on the statement.

Yes these despicable companies have every right to blackball the  guy.

 

[roamer_1]

So basically you want the Federal Government to tell Facebook (A private company), that they have to allow content from whack jobs like Alex Jones. Correct?

Incorrect.

[kevindavis007]

Correct. it is censorship if the government is involved. Alex Jones does not have the right to hold FaceBook hostage. FB is the conduit and they are partly responsible for their content.

Bingo..

[jmyrlefuller]

It is not that hard to put up an alternative site. Also, why in the hell are conservatives defending Alex Jones.

1. If "it is not that hard," then why have all other efforts failed? Putting one up is easy. It's the gaining of critical mass that is the hard part.

2. We all know Alex Jones, whose dubious claims have been around since the 1990s, is a kook. It's the principle that Silicon Valley wants to shape public opinion the same way the legacy media does by demonetizing Youtube videos, burying conservative posts, and employing biased "fact checkers" to tell the difference, all while hiding under the fiction of a neutral public forum and diverting so much of the public discourse through them. If they can go after Jones, they can go (and have gone) after any of us.

[kevindavis007]

1. If "it is not that hard," then why have all other efforts failed? Putting one up is easy. It's the gaining of critical mass that is the hard part.

2. We all know Alex Jones, whose dubious claims have been around since the 1990s, is a kook. It's the principle that Silicon Valley wants to shape public opinion the same way the legacy media does by demonetizing Youtube videos, burying conservative posts, and employing biased "fact checkers" to tell the difference, all while hiding under the fiction of a neutral public forum and diverting so much of the public discourse through them. If they can go after Jones, they can go (and have gone) after any of us.

Take a look at this: https://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+alternatives&qs=ONR&pq=youtube+al&sc=8-10&cvid=8B990A1283EB4C2B8EBB371E8891ADDB&FORM=QBLH&sp=1&ghc=1

[jmyrlefuller]

So basically you want the Federal Government to tell Facebook (A private company), that they have to allow content from whack jobs like Alex Jones. Correct?

Not a private company. A public corporation. If they want to shield themselves from liability with government protection, they need to obey certain standards. If Marc Zuckerberg still owned Facebook as a private company, then yeah, maybe he would have that right to pick and choose. But the moment he started selling shares on the open market, that all went away. If you can own stock in it, you can use it. That's my belief.

[ABX]

Not a private company. A public corporation. If they want to shield themselves from liability with government protection, they need to obey certain standards. If Marc Zuckerberg still owned Facebook as a private company, then yeah, maybe he would have that right to pick and choose. But the moment he started selling shares on the open market, that all went away. If you can own stock in it, you can use it. That's my belief.

Publically owned companies (publically traded) are still considered private sector companies (versus public sector which is government entities)..

So basically, YouTube should 'bake the damn cake'?

What's next, Mardell Christian Books must carry Satanist books because some Satanist may own stock in it so they demand the content they want?

[Restored]

Rather ironic that they suspended InforWars for pushing Fake News.

[thackney]

Not a private company. A public corporation. If they want to shield themselves from liability with government protection, they need to obey certain standards. If Marc Zuckerberg still owned Facebook as a private company, then yeah, maybe he would have that right to pick and choose. But the moment he started selling shares on the open market, that all went away. If you can own stock in it, you can use it. That's my belief.

What?  If publicly traded, you believe they can be forced to provide services they don't agree with?

Try expanding that beyond Facebook for a bit and see if you really agree with it.

[ABX]

Rather ironic that they suspended InforWars for pushing Fake News.

Actually, they suspended him for repeated calls of violence. (that was the technical reason). He was getting pretty bad in his ranting.

But it ironic so many want to use Jones to plant their flag on, considering they are screaming about 'Fake News' but Jones is light years faker than the worst we complain about with CNN. He even admitted, in court, under oath, he is just an act and it is all fake.

I guess we only care about 'fake news' when it doesn't wear the same red hat as us. But it is OUR fake news...

[kidd]

They have the audacity to believe they are private companies instead of public utilities. How dare they choose what content is on their sites.

I initially agreed with your response, but after reading a post by Markomalley at TOS, a significant concern is raised:

Certainly none of these companies are government entities and so the First Amendment does not apply to them; however, they are given protection from legal liability by federal law:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
=============
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
============
Plain language:
•An "interactive computer service" provides access and a forum for users. The above section of 47 U.S.C. §230 exempts them from liability for what is posted to their services...because they don't directly "censor" what is posted to the service.
•An "Internet Content Provider" is responsible for the content that he provides. Because they make editorial decisions on what content they provide, they do not have an exemption (they are responsible for the information they publish).
==========
Facebook, Google (YouTube), etc., claim an exemption as "interactive computer services" -- that is why they aren't charged with conspiracy to promote terrorism, political violence, libel, etc., because of leftist/Islamist agitprop posted to their platforms.

In taking the decision to de-platform Infowars ... they have transitioned from being "interactive computer services" to "Internet Content Providers" and should be held liable for the criminal garbage hosted on their sites.

[jpsb]

Should that matter, though?

Facebook will not show this conservative ad

! No longer available

[ABX]

I initially agreed with your response, but after reading a post by Markomalley at TOS, a significant concern is raised:

Except if you look at the detail of what was done, they technically weren't censoring content, they were banning a user for violations of terms of service (which the user agrees to when he joins those platforms). Jones technically was banned for repeated calls of violence. There is a difference between banning a user for violating terms he agreed to and 'censoring' content. The difference between a content provider and a service provider is important because on a platform the size of Facebook, for example, they have about a billion users and simply can't be responsible to track down and manage every single post in the general 'editorial' management sense. They would need to have millions of employees reviewing and censoring posts if that were to take place. As a service provider though, they can keep protections from the responsibility from some random post by one of the billion users, while at the same time, retaining the rights to protect the site when they catch violators of the terms of service.

So that law is good in protecting business, those who want to plant their flag on it are just now splitting hairs to try to make it about this? 

If that's the case then, what right would Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or any other 'service provider' site have in banning anyone? YouTube has been taking down ISIS videos when they find them. I suppose using the exact same argument, they have no right to take those down?

[ABX]

Facebook will not show this conservative ad

! No longer available

Interesting considering I've seen that at least a dozen times on Facebook.

[Wingnut]

Interesting considering I've seen that at least a dozen times on Facebook.

The long 4 min version just returned after a it was pulled. 

[240B]

Don't go to Facebook anymore. So I have no idea what they are 'banning' or not banning.
I took the initiative and banned Facebook from my life, before they could ban me.


If I ever want what FB is offering, I'll go to DailyKos or DU. They are all starting to merge together anyway.

[Restored]

Actually, they suspended him for repeated calls of violence. (that was the technical reason). He was getting pretty bad in his ranting.

It doesn't explain why others have been banned. Jones is just the Strawman. When he was pushing Trutherism, everything was OK.
So their argument is "Jones is calling for violence and the others are just like him" which insinuates that they are also calling for violence.

[jpsb]

The long 4 min version just returned after a it was pulled.

Good, a lot of us have been raising hell on twitter over the censorship of conservatives by social
media, facebook in particular. info-wars is just the beginning. Pray the GOP keeps the house and the
Senate in the mid-terms.

[roamer_1]

Correct. it is censorship if the government is involved.

As a point of order - It is censorship, whether the government or not.

[jmyrlefuller]

What?  If publicly traded, you believe they can be forced to provide services they don't agree with?

Try expanding that beyond Facebook for a bit and see if you really agree with it.

You are humanizing a nonhuman abstract concept.

[thackney]

You are humanizing a nonhuman abstract concept.

Maybe it would help if you would expand on:

...If you can own stock in it, you can use it. That's my belief.

[jmyrlefuller]

Maybe it would help if you would expand on:

I did say that "that's my belief." How that translates to policy, that's a little more complicated and I'm not sure that that can even be implemented as a government policy. I do firmly believe that corporations do not have the same right to be capricious about who and what they allow or serve as "closely held" companies or individuals have, because they're fundamentally different entities. (A corporation cannot worship God, for example.) The Supreme Court has suggested that such a distinction is important.

The fundamental difference we have is whether or not a publicly held corporation, and all that entails, is, in and of itself, entitled to the same rights as a flesh-and-blood human being, or even if they have the capability to act upon those rights at all.

AbaraXas's statements have suggested that because they're not government companies, they can do whatever their management wants, and that just about any restrictions on that would be considered fascist, even those that aim for open and equitable access.